View Full Version : Fav Assault Rifles
The_Raptor
Jan 24 2002, 23:23
Dang, I like them all!
FetishFool
Jan 24 2002, 23:30
My favorite assault rifle is the AKMS.
I own an AKMS, SVD Dragunov, and I have an inoperative AK-47 in the display case.
I live in Toronto, but there aren't any real laws against owning AKs.
We don't have any solid ties with NATO. Since they don't even consider us our own country.
ive shot my grandfathers ak47 and he lives in the us. But he was in the CIA and got all this cool shit in vietnam. But i voted for g36
bluelaser
Jan 25 2002, 00:29
AUG!!!
PFC_Mike
Jan 25 2002, 02:02
FA-MAS! and IMI Tavor!
ofp NEEDS an fa-mas. I'm tires of playing the original MGS.
Since my SL8 isnt an option I would have to say AR-15
FetishFool
Jan 25 2002, 03:03
The AR15 is basically an M16 with minor differences.
I hear the AR15 is still used by the CIA for some reason.
Even though the M16 is an improvement of the AR15.
Assault (CAN)
Jan 25 2002, 03:34
Maybe the CIA is cheap? or maybe the civilian AR-15 works better with .223 ammo?
I have shot the C7A1 which is a Canadian variation on the M-16 family, and I like it. I will be out shooting it this weekend, but with blanks though.
I voted for the G36 because of the better design. Since it vents the gas in the forearm and not in the action like other assault rifles do, making it easier to clean.
Tyler
P.S. Hey FetishFool, you live in Toronto? cool, I'm down in St.Catharines.
FetishFool
Jan 25 2002, 04:22
The C7A1 is a really nice rifle. ***I don't know the techinical differences between the M16A2 and the C7A1.
I'm planning to join the Canadian army. ***I'd choose to join the Canadians over the Americans because we're just easy-going.
Canadian's don't kick a soldier out of the army just for punching an officer... ***But we'd kick a soldier out if he kicked a dog.
That just tells you something about our morals.
@Assault: ***I actually live in Scarborough. ***But since we all merged into the Mega City a while ago, I just say that I live in Toronto now.
Assault (CAN)
Jan 25 2002, 04:35
No real difference. Ours have full-auto and theirs have 3 round burst. Ours has a flat-top upper reciever with an Elcan 3.5x scope on top. The Americans are still using the iron sights.
Im not sure if the barrels are the same. I know that ours have 1:7 rifling, the Americans *might* have 1:9 rifling. I'm not too sure.
Thats really the only differences.
I'm planning to join the Canadian army.
Reserve or Reg force? What type of work (MOC) are you going for? Infantry? Armoured? Artillery? or possibly W.O.G.?, R.E.M.F.?
Tyler
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ Jan. 25 2002,05:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The AR15 is basically an M16 with minor differences.
I hear the AR15 is still used by the CIA for some reason.
Even though the M16 is an improvement of the AR15.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The M-16 is an AR-15, but has selective fire as a feature.
Armalite Rifle no. 15 was designed by Eugene Stoner who worked for Armalite. taken from Armalite Rifle no. 10
M-16 became its designation because the military does not use company names due to contract altercations/switching. M-15 was already designated to a landmine.
110
FetishFool
Jan 25 2002, 04:46
I'm going to join the reserves.
I'm pretty sure that they assign you your work in the reserves by testing.
The C7A1 is less expensive than the M16. So we can afford to give the C7A1 a few gadgets by default. The M16A2 can be fitted with a full auto mechanism, or a 4x scope.
I think Canada only uses our own line of equipment because either we're not allowed to use the M16A2 as our main rifle, or we just don't want to use any american equipement on our soldiers.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 25 2002,06:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No real difference. Ours have full-auto and theirs have 3 round burst. Ours has a flat-top upper reciever with an Elcan 3.5x scope on top. The Americans are still using the iron sights.
Im not sure if the barrels are the same. I know that ours have 1:7 rifling, the Americans *might* have 1:9 rifling. I'm not too sure.
Thats really the only differences.
I'm planning to join the Canadian army.
Reserve or Reg force? What type of work (MOC) are you going for? Infantry? Armoured? Artillery? or possibly W.O.G.?, R.E.M.F.?
Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The C8 and M4 are pretty much the same. both are flat top.
US special forces have all kinds of nifty gadgets to post on top of the upper receiver.
US M-16a2 and M4 have 1:7 twist rates.
I prefer the 1:9 becasue its good enough to stabalize the heavier bullets. 1:7 will wear out quicker then 1:9 twist and the 1:9 can handle light weight bullets. 1:9="jack-of-all-trades" middle ground.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ Jan. 25 2002,06:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm going to join the reserves.
I'm pretty sure that they assign you your work in the reserves by testing.
The C7A1 is less expensive than the M16. ***So we can afford to give the C7A1 a few gadgets by default. ***The M16A2 can be fitted with a full auto mechanism, or a 4x scope.
I think Canada only uses our own line of equipment because either we're not allowed to use the M16A2 as our main rifle, or we just don't want to use any american equipement on our soldiers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HaHaHaHa!!!
The parts probably all come from the same plants. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
110
the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.
christophercles
Jan 25 2002, 04:54
In the game, i love the aug, but the question is, what the hell is the aug family?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Jan. 25 2002,06:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the game, i love the aug, but the question is, what the hell is the aug family?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Steyr AUG (army universal gun)
there are different types of AUG's including a 9mm "carbine", two differnet issue AUG's as standard rifles (one with integral scope, the other flat top), a squad automatic version with folding bipod. kind of like the RPK-74, but better since the AUG has easily removed barrels if they get too hot.
AUG's usually come with either 16 or 20 inch barrels.
i want an AUG http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
110
christophercles
Jan 25 2002, 05:03
I know all about the aug, but it isnt really a "family" its just a series of variants.
Sandman
Jan 25 2002, 05:42
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Jan. 25 2002,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know all about the aug, but it isnt really a "family" its just a series of variants.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
maybe should have been the Steyr-family? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
FetishFool
Jan 25 2002, 05:52
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (110 @ Jan. 24 2002,13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I think Canada only uses our own line of equipment because either we're not allowed to use the M16A2 as our main rifle, or we just don't want to use any american equipement on our soldiers.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HaHaHaHa!!!
The parts probably all come from the same plants. ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
110[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's actually something for me to be proud of!
lol
I just hope it's true.
I'd still prefer the M16A2, though. Just for stereo-typical reasons.
If it were up to pride, then I'd take the C7A1.
On a side note, the G36 has absolutley NO reason for being in OFP.. it was not around in the time period of the OFP Scenario.
that and in the game its totally porked.. for some majic reason it shakes less than all the other weapon when ya hold it and is more accurate than EITHER sniper rifle.. BS
FetishFool
Jan 25 2002, 07:52
It's just nice to see the G36 model in OPF.
We can edit the attributes later. I think that's why BIS made such an unrealistic model of it.
They don't want us using the G36 in OPF MP.
It sometimes ruins the fun, in infantry battles.
If they gave us a Harrier model, but with A10 attributes, I'd be very happy.
That's my point.
Assault (CAN)
Jan 25 2002, 09:02
I'm pretty sure that they assign you your work in the reserves by testing.
Yes and No. You pick what you want to do. I chose infantry. I qualified for every position that the reserves offers because I did well on my aptitude test.
Different trades require different scores, a low score limits you to certain things but with a high one you can pretty much do what you choose.
I prefer the 1:9 becasue its good enough to stabalize the heavier bullets. 1:7 will wear out quicker then 1:9 twist and the 1:9 can handle light weight bullets. 1:9="jack-of-all-trades" middle ground.
I guess it depends on the weight of your bullet. I think 1:7 would work better with a 75 gr. bullet. But since I don't shoot my own .223 I can't be sure. I guess 1:9 would be better with the 62 gr bullet or even the old surplus 55gr. stuff, as you said.
Tyler
Valmets and Sakos rifles.
They combine reliability with accuracy.
Snake1999
Jan 25 2002, 20:45
FAMAS http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Funky Weapon
http://world.guns.ru/assault/famas_f2.jpg
Cool airsoft model of the FAMAS:
http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/Famas_sv_custom.jpg
Picture from this (http://www.mfiap.com/airsoft/famas.htm) site.
And also,, the swedish Bofors AK-5 isn't bad either:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/ak5c.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/assault/ak5b.jpg
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a big pile of BS pal http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles.
Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters . http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rogue @ Jan. 26 2002,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a big pile of BS pal http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles.
Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters . http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"intermediate range" refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range.
THE G3, FN FAL, M1 Garand AND M-14 ARE BATTLE RIFLES, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES ACCORDING TO MILITARY DEFINITION. (US)
110
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (christophercles @ Jan. 25 2002,07:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know all about the aug, but it isnt really a "family" its just a series of variants.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If variants dont make a "family" then no weapon belongs to a "family".
The different AK's are not a "family"? there variants of the same thing
110
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a big pile of BS pal http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles.
Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters . http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"intermediate range" refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range.
THE G3, FN FAL, M1 Garand AND M-14 ARE BATTLE RIFLES, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES ACCORDING TO MILITARY DEFINITION. (US)
110[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"intermediate range refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range."
Say do you have any clue what you are talking about, nevertheless you are greatly entertaining http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
According to your selfbrewed ""definitions"" the larger the caliber the greater the range, which is entirely untrue. You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22. The effective range is a sum up of several factors, like caliber, barrel length, ballistics, optics and so on, that all results in the effective range and is directly related to such terms as short, intermediate and long range.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge.
This is what you wrote, fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s ***up to 800m in standard config.
I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rogue @ Jan. 26 2002,06:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats a big pile of BS pal http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif. All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles.
Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters . http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"intermediate range" refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range.
THE G3, FN FAL, M1 Garand AND M-14 ARE BATTLE RIFLES, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES ACCORDING TO MILITARY DEFINITION. (US)
110[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"intermediate range refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range."
Say do you have any clue what you are talking about, nevertheless you are greatly entertaining http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
According to your selfbrewed ""definitions"" the larger the caliber the greater the range, which is entirely untrue. You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22. The effective range is a sum up of several factors, like caliber, barrel length, ballistics, optics and so on, that all results in the effective range and is directly related to such terms as short, intermediate and long range.
assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge.
This is what you wrote, fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s ***up to 800m in standard config.
I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
HaHaHa!!!!
your missing the point. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif the effective engagement range of the combat rifles has nothing to do with wether or not it is a "battle rifle" or an "assault rifle". im merely stating what the US govt defines as such. other countries might define them completly different.
I do not consider myself a "gun expert". seems everybody is one, but try visiting http://www.ar15.com and debating your posistion there. i spend a LOT of time there (my user name is libertoon) and they will school you on what a "Battle rifle" is. and a lot of them there are military personal and firearm collectors.
and by the way. the .308, 8mm, 30-06 and 7.62x54mm will retain a HELL of a lot more muzzle energy then an intermediate (mouse gun) rifle cartridge down range.
do some research before you spout off at the mouth with your "vast" firearm knowledge.
110
Aaron Kane
Jan 27 2002, 01:16
I think I've heard the term battle-rifle used with the M-14, but I'm not sure...
Mister Frag
Jan 27 2002, 02:11
110 has been correct in his posts.
To nobody in particular: if you don't know what the difference between a Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle is, then you shouldn't try to argue the point with him.
Point for everyone... Why to argue of terms because they vary in about every country...
Assault (CAN)
Jan 28 2002, 01:01
fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s up to 800m in standard config.
I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!?
Rogue, you are wrong here. 110 is correct. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Any rifle wether it's a "battle rifle" chambered for 7.62 NATO or an "assault rifle" chambered for 5.56 NATO will have an "effective" range of 300m with open sights. When you put optics on it, both can go to 800m and still be "effective". The difference is, 7.62 NATO will still drop someone at 800m effectively, 5.56 NATO won't.
Take this for an example, if you are armed with a "battle rifle" (eg: FN FAL) and see someone taking cover behind a tree at 200m, you shoot the tree.
If you are armed with an "assault rifle" (eg: M-16) you wait 'till the person moves, or you can shoot around the tree to try and stop them from moving until someone comes along with a "battle rifle" or GPMG.
You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22.
I doubt it, well maybe, if the barrel of a 7.62 NATO was 2 inches! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Your point is a moot one. Most barrels on any standard issue army rifles are 16 inches or longer.
The calibre (I should say: powder capacity of a cartridge + bullet weight) is the main contributor to effectiveness and range.
M-249 (5.56 NATO) effective range on an area target = 800m
M-240 (7.62 NATO) effective range on an area target = 1800m
Tyler
Take this for an example, if you are armed with a "battle rifle" (eg: FN FAL) and see someone taking cover behind a tree at 200m, you shoot the tree.
if the tree is thick enough to hide a person behind, shooting it with a "battle rifle" wouldent do much good... other than maby scare the hell out of the guy behind it.. I doube the bullet would go through the tree.. much less straight enough and with enough power left to hit the target behind it..
Assault (CAN)
Jan 28 2002, 10:05
7.62 NATO can go through a telephone pole at 200m, no problem. Since most telephone poles are made from trees, it makes sense that a 7.62 NATO round will go through any tree of about equal thickness. But this depends on the size of the tree and if its hollow or not, blah, blah, blah,.... lets not get *too* technical now shall we? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Your so argumentative! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Tyler
7.62x39 penetrates around 60cm's of wood.
Use of being at the other side of tree that is not as thich is that round can easily change its direction while flying through tree and might come out so that you wont get hit.
United States Defense Departments Defense Intelligence Agency "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide"
Assault Rifles: Short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
Defense Intelligence Agency, Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide-Eurasian Communist Countries (Washington: Government printing office_1988)
The cartridges .308 (7.62x51mm), 8mm, and 30-06 are high powered cartridges that were designed for true rifles. they were not designed to be fired in full-auto from carbine sized weapons. this is why the 7.62x39mm, 5.56mm and others are smaller then "real" rifle rounds. the smaller cartridge (between submachinegun and rifle) is necessary to facillate controlable full-auto fire. this does not mean that a Battle rifle cant be full-auto. Battle rifles can be either full-auto capable or not.
The US M-14 was originally issued as just a semi-auto. during vietnam experiments were made to convert it to full auto. it failed. the .308 round has to much kick to deliver accurate full-auto fire, not to mention it produced cracked receivers. the FN FAL and G3 were more reliable in this department, but the issue of increased recoil remains. the FN FAL has the least recoil of any of the other battle rifles.
Historical Battle rifles include the M1 Garand (BM-59) , German G-43, and the Egyptian Hakim.
110
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Jan. 28 2002,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take this for an example, if you are armed with a "battle rifle" (eg: FN FAL) and see someone taking cover behind a tree at 200m, you shoot the tree.
if the tree is thick enough to hide a person behind, shooting it with a "battle rifle" wouldent do much good... other than maby scare the hell out of the guy behind it.. I doube the bullet would go through the tree.. much less straight enough and with enough power left to hit the target behind it..[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you use steel core bullets, it could easily penetrate a tree if it is within an agreeable distance. would bary by cartridge and barrel length.
A freind of my fathers bought a british .303 (not to different from a .308 or 7.62x54mm) and purchased military issue rounds. those rounds happened to be steel core. he shout clean through a tree like it was butter. imagine a car......
110
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 27 2002,04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">110 has been correct in his posts.
To nobody in particular: if you don't know what the difference between a Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle is, then you shouldn't try to argue the point with him.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is no difference in my country, neither do i have heard this term ever before in the US, and i´ve been around alot. Someone that actually served and doesn´t get his knowledge from online forums or other online sources would be highly welcomed to end this debate.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 28 2002,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s ***up to 800m in standard config.
I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!?
Rogue, you are wrong here. 110 is correct. ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Any rifle wether it's a "battle rifle" chambered for 7.62 NATO or an "assault rifle" chambered for 5.56 NATO will have an "effective" range of 300m with open sights. When you put optics on it, both can go to 800m and still be "effective". The difference is, 7.62 NATO will still drop someone at 800m effectively, 5.56 NATO won't.
Take this for an example, if you are armed with a "battle rifle" (eg: FN FAL) and see someone taking cover behind a tree at 200m, you shoot the tree.
If you are armed with an "assault rifle" (eg: M-16) you wait 'till the person moves, or you can shoot around the tree to try and stop them from moving until someone comes along with a "battle rifle" or GPMG.
You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22.
I doubt it, well maybe, if the barrel of a 7.62 NATO was 2 inches! ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Your point is a moot one. Most barrels on any standard issue army rifles are 16 inches or longer.
The calibre (I should say: powder capacity of a cartridge + bullet weight) is the main contributor to effectiveness and range.
M-249 (5.56 NATO) effective range on an area target = 800m
M-240 (7.62 NATO) effective range on an area target = 1800m
Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thats plain incorrect,
optimal combat and engagement distance for the G36 is 500m, max. engagement distance 800m, these are no guestimate values, these are the specifications as they are instructed.
The G36 is also used in a LMG role, you figure the rest.
About that 800m and a 0.223 projectile not being able to drop some was ment as a joke right http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mister Frag
Jan 29 2002, 02:01
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">110 has been correct in his posts.
To nobody in particular: if you don't know what the difference between a Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle is, then you shouldn't try to argue the point with him.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There is no difference in my country, neither do i have heard this term ever before in the US, and i´ve been around alot. Someone that actually served and doesn´t get his knowledge from online forums or other online sources would be highly welcomed to end this debate.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The terms are real, and even if they are different in other countries, the respective weapons groups to which they apply fill different roles.
Assault rifles are light-weight weapons, often with folding or collapsible stocks. Most of them have full-auto or burst-mode fire control systems, and can frequently be fired with one hand. They often also trade cartridge power for size/weight and/or controllable full-auto fire.
Battle or infantry rifles are much heavier, have fixed stocks, are chambered for higher-power cartridges, and often do not have full-auto capability.
I have not served in the military, but have owned military firearms for almost two decades. I have participated in tactical firearms training (rifles, handguns, SMGs) with active-duty and retired members of most branches of the military, including Navy SEALs, DOE nuclear powerplant protectors, several SWAT departments, FBI HRT members, and even two Russian SPETZNAS members.
7.62 NATO can go through a telephone pole at 200m, no problem.
ok so maby a SMALL tree.. I for one cant hade myself completley behind a telephone pole (say 1.5 feet wide).. and no im not fat by any stretch of the imagination...
Assault (CAN)
Jan 29 2002, 03:45
There is no difference in my country, neither do i have heard this term ever before in the US, and i´ve been around alot. Someone that actually served and doesn´t get his knowledge from online forums or other online sources would be highly welcomed to end this debate.
Been around alot eh? Well, It appears that it's 4 on 1 on this issue. Wobble, Mr Frag, 110, myself, vs you. We all seem to know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle" and the U.S. Army seems to know the difference as well. What country are you from anyway? Just because YOU haven't heard about something does not mean we are all wrong.
Oh, as a matter of fact, I am currently in the "service" in the Canadian Army Reserves. I am in the Infantry and have heard the terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" used more than once. Trust me, I know the difference.
Thats plain incorrect,
optimal combat and engagement distance for the G36 is 500m, max. engagement distance 800m, these are no guestimate values, these are the specifications as they are instructed.
The G36 is also used in a LMG role, you figure the rest.
About that 800m and a 0.223 projectile not being able to drop some was ment as a joke right
I have NO idea of what you are trying to say, what are you trying to tell me? Did you even read my earlier post? Did you not understand something? You think I'm wrong??, LOL
Maybe your right and my military training has been incorrect http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Please read my post again, carefully. We have already done about all the explaining we can do for you. Its up to you to read it carefully and understand it. Trust us, we know what we're talking about! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Tyler
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The terms are real, and even if they are different in other countries, the respective weapons groups to which they apply fill different roles.
Assault rifles are light-weight weapons, often with folding or collapsible stocks. Most of them have full-auto or burst-mode fire control systems, and can frequently be fired with one hand. They often also trade cartridge power for size/weight and/or controllable full-auto fire.
Battle or infantry rifles are much heavier, have fixed stocks, are chambered for higher-power cartridges, and often do not have full-auto capability.
I have not served in the military, but have owned military firearms for almost two decades. I have participated in tactical firearms training (rifles, handguns, SMGs) with active-duty and retired members of most branches of the military, including Navy SEALs, DOE nuclear powerplant protectors, several SWAT departments, FBI HRT members, and even two Russian SPETZNAS members.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I´m sorry but you are wrong, at least for german, austrian and swiss military classifications. The G36 fullfills the same role, is classified with the same term as the G3, both called Assault Rifles, or just Rifles, "Sturmgewehr" or "Gewehr", both, no different terms or roles. If they fullfill different tasks as you are trying to make believe, i ask you why the M16 replaced the M14, why did the G36 replace the G3.... There is no standard issue M14 in the US Army nowadays, other than for sniping purposes (extremely rare) or with the Special Forces maybe, because an individual has a hang on a certain weapon.
You can´t, as someone correctly pointed out, shoot beyond 300-400m precisely without optics, therefore 0.308 caliber became obsolete as the standard assault rifle caliber because 0.223 can cover this range more than well while having more ammo and easier handling. Those weapons in .308 caliber or above, that shoot precisely with the aid of optics beyond this range are called sniper rifles if they fullfill the precision requirements and are being used in the sniper role. A .308 rifle not suited for sniper tasks also shoots at "intermediate" range, just as .223, even with optics. At 800m a 0.223 bullet will inflict enough damage to kill right out, that´s mainly caused by disintegration of the round in the target. When a NATO 0.308 round impacts, it will most likely have a clean passthrough, without much damage to organs besides the actual projectile path. An 90° upper chest hit to a male with average body constitution will make the 0.308 round turn maybe once around its axis before it leaves the body. A 0.223 round will have a shrapnel effect in the body, it disentegrates because of the high velocity, causing very severe wounds and damage to organs and tissue in the surrounding of the impact point. ***
According to your definition "Battlerifles" must begin somewhere after .308, as you seem to consider folding or de- and retractable stocks, for easier handling, or full auto as "light weight" typical, which in fact is a feature of many .308 assault rifles.
G3, M14, FAL just to name the most wide spread and well known, these are Rifles or Assault Rifles.
The term "Battle Rifle" is as official as "Scum Duster". "Battlerifles" is more likely a civil term referring to all rifles used in combat, pretty much the same as combat rifle, it doesn´t stand for caliber, weigth, fixed buttstock or anything else.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Been around alot eh? Well, It appears that it's 4 on 1 on this issue. Wobble, Mr Frag, 110, myself, vs you. We all seem to know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle" and the U.S. Army seems to know the difference as well. What country are you from anyway? Just because [b]YOU haven't heard about something does not mean we are all wrong.
Oh, as a matter of fact, I am currently in the "service" in the Canadian Army Reserves. I am in the Infantry and have heard the terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" used more than once. Trust me, I know the difference.
Thats plain incorrect,
optimal combat and engagement distance for the G36 is 500m, max. engagement distance 800m, these are no guestimate values, these are the specifications as they are instructed.
The G36 is also used in a LMG role, you figure the rest.
About that 800m and a 0.223 projectile not being able to drop some was ment as a joke right
I have NO idea of what you are trying to say, what are you trying to tell me? Did you even read my earlier post? Did you not understand something? You think I'm wrong??, LOL
Maybe your right and my military training has been incorrect http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Please read my post again, carefully. We have already done about all the explaining we can do for you. Its up to you to read it carefully and understand it. Trust us, we know what we're talking about! ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Tyler[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
"4 wrongs doesn´t make 1 right" we´d say over here.
Yes, i have read your former post and i said it´s incorrect, simply because you stated that a 0.223 wouldn´t be effective on targets at 800m (not being able to drop them). I told you are wrong, what else can i write, either you take it or you leave it. The fact that the G36 has markers for 800m shooting should be already sufficent for you. I said it before and i say it again, there are no Battlerifles in terms of caliber classification, or roles. Battlerifle, just as combat rifle are generalisation terms used for all rifles that are used in combat, got nothing to do with certain rifles or classifications.
Show me the FM covering the M-14 "Battlerifle", you can´t, because there isn´t such thing, it´s either rifle or assault rifle. Just show me an official army site using the term Battle Rifle in the same manner as you do, even when you search via google CAR-15´s and other carbines will be dubbed battlerifles, the authors***seem to be just as professional as you are.....
Assault (CAN)
Jan 30 2002, 02:51
I was saying:
Yes, the G-36 has sight markings that go to 800m, so does the C7A1 and C9 LMG. I already knew that. That does not mean that they are "effective" out to 800m.
What I mean by "effective" is this: being able to get a clean kill on a human with ONE shot. Assault rifle calibres (5.56 NATO) can only do this to about 300 m. "Real" rifle calibres (7.62 NATO) can do this out to about 800m.
When you get to 800m with .223 (5.56 NATO) it is no longer 1 shot effective, unless you are lucky. When you are shooting at a target 800m away, you need a LMG or a section of (8) guys with their assault rifles all firing at the same thing.
At 800m it is unlikely that you will be firing at a human with an assault rifle, it can only handle "area" targets out to 800m. An "area" target is something like a building or truck or group of people.
In the Canadian Army, we consider the C7A1 to be single person/single shot effective to 300m and section (8 guys) effective to 600m on one target.
Yes it can go to 800m, but you are practically shooting for the sky at that distance, trust me. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Show me the FM covering the M-14 "Battlerifle", you can´t,[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, when the M-14 was fielded (1950's) the term "assault rifle" did not exist, the army was not using them or the term yet. Back then it was just a "rifle"
Go to this site HERE (http://www.snipershide.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi)
and tell them that there is no such thing as a "battle" rifle! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
They are quite professional.
BTW, have you ever shot an "assault rifle" before?, just curious, not meant to offend.
Tyler
christophercles
Jan 30 2002, 03:02
*cries for assault rifles everywhere*
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1300/1303.htm
i just need to ask a quick question about the GE M134 Predator. is this weapon used as a infintry weapon? as in would infintry carry it as a standard weapon?
http://www.geocities.com/rag_clan2000/guns/ge_m134_predator.jpg
......... it seems my thumbnail doesnt want to appear so heres a url (http://www.geocities.com/rag_clan2000/guns/ge_m134_predator.jpg)
Mister Frag
Feb 4 2002, 00:54
No, there is no minigun that is used as an infantry weapon.
The force of the recoil would prevent accurate aiming, plus you would have to lug around a ton of ammunition and a heavy high-voltage power source to operate the minigun.
Let's leave stuff like that to Arnold and the various Quake-based games...
Pardon my ignorance, but do miniguns play any role in any army? If not, then why are they made... certainly not for personal use.
The only use i can see for them is a defensive weapon, but we already have high caliber mounted machine guns for that job.
Mister Frag
Feb 5 2002, 01:37
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vir @ Feb. 05 2002,10:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pardon my ignorance, but do miniguns play any role in any army?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The door gunners on chopper like 'em, and they work just fine for Spectre gunships.
those are chainguns/vulcans though, arent they?
well in veitnam they used the predator in foxholes. i was just wondering if it would be humanly possible for a large guy to be able to lug the gun and ammo around.
btw try this URL (http://www.geocities.com/rag_clan2000/guns.html)***instead of the old one, cuzz the old one dont work either and check out the Chrome predator, it looks preetty sweet
Mister Frag
Feb 5 2002, 02:41
Besides the gun and ammo, there's also a high-voltage power source required to get the barrels rotating. Imagine lugging a car battery or two around with all the other stuff, and you get the idea.
Assault (CAN)
Feb 5 2002, 04:01
Even if you could carry all that crap, the 2000+ rounds you had would probably be gone in about a minute of sustained fire.
Tyler
Thehamster
Feb 5 2002, 21:02
ahh the minigun debate when will it end..All we got to do is simple physics to work out the idea of a minigun for common battle field use is bloody usless unless you wanna escape quickly.
it wasnt a debate, but a question
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.