Thread: best weapons ever!

Choose the best weapon/vehicle here or if its not in my poll add one of ur own!

Alright no one has answered this post so I will explain why I think the M16 is the best weapon ever. The M16 was built and put into service in the beginning of the Vietnam war, replacing the M1 carbine and other WW2 era weapons still being used. The idea behind it was to create an assault rifle that was accurate, durable, strong, and had a fast fire rate. The M16 embodied all these traits and was so popular they made 4 upgraded versions of it. The M4 carbine( the main assault rifle used today) is based on the M16, the only differences being faster fire rate, more accuracy, less recoil, and an improved stock.

I don't think the poll makes any sense. You have offered no definition, or even discussion of what constitutes best.

Weapons are tools which can assist in achieving particular strategic or tactical goals. Consequently the 'best' weapon depends upon several factors:
a) What are the strategic or tactical goals?
b) What is the experience level of those using the weapon?
c) What is the nature and experience of the opposition?
d) What are the economic factors of deploying the weapon?
etc.

Without specifying context your question becomes meaningless.

On the subject of the M16, there are many who would dispute your claim, based upon its questionable reliability and would speak of the ruggedness, ease of servicing, and reliability of the AK47.

If you insist upon a choice I would select an English long bow of yew. The impact of this weapon is still seen six centuries later in the British two fingered 'up yours' gesture. The French, when they captured English archers, would cut off the index and forefinger of their right hand, so that they could no longer use a bow. English archers would taunt their enemies by showing that they still had those fingers.

The biggest problem with the AK-47 is that it has a horrible recoil and ultimately it boils down to the fact that the weapon is arguably the best assault rifle ever made imo. Choosing the best weapon entails opinion, popularity, ease of use, ruggedness, effectiveness, track record.

What do you mean by the best?

The most 'deaths' per buck?

THe longest range?

The most undetectable??

Defensive/offensive...

Read my previous post. It says it there in full view.

ok i was going to ignore this one because of ficleness. but if you want me to i will....

the M16 was built and put into service in the beginning of the Vietnam war, replacing the M1 carbine and other WW2 era weapons still being used

actually we had upgraded to the infamous M-14 by then, and that one was to be replace, because new recruits weren't use to full auto fire, and would let the recoil get the better of them, making their shots effectively useless.

the M16 came out with a selector with single shot, full auto and burst fire. it's major draaw backs were that it was effectivle a piece of crap in the hot humid jungle. it rusted, and jamed easily, witout the help of the very abundant mud, and rainy conditions there.

it took 2-5 years (not sure) but we now have the M-16/M-4, the newer revised version of the M-16 without all it's flaws.

as for the AK-47, it really falls on my main point i will reviele in the end.

the ak47 is a stamped steel weapon. it's cheaper than dirt to make. all you need is a metal press/ steel stamper, and big sheets of steel. it's ont of the most accurate weapons in the market. and one of the most abundant weapons avalible. (because of USSR colaps and cheap production capability)

asside from that, you can drown an ak47 in mud, just wash out the barrel and you can shoot it again. i dont have recorded proof of this but i heard it from someone that owned one. he was quite reliable.

and even than the AK47 is made with wood/skeleton stock, so it's extreamly light and it has a much larger round. this is why most people say it has a lot of recoil. because by comparison our machine milled M-4 is fairly heavy. the ak47 was designed as a throw away gun. shoot it till your out of ammo, and on the off chance the gun breaks, throw it in the trash and get another 5 from the armory....

a weapon that was truely made to fight a lousing war as well as a winning one just as well.

really the choice of gun is not based on popularity, nor statistics nor even rugedness or ease of use. but on your situation alone.

opinion - i happen to like the G36c though i do not know any statistics for it, i know it's german made (H&K baby!) and they usually make really great products. or perhaps a USP-45 submachinegun, nothing like a .45 in full auto to get rid of those anoying clouds of enemies...

popularity - from here i'd ahve to say either the AK or M-4. i happen to like the 7.62 better than the 5.56, because of my M-44 mosin nagant, so i'd have to say AK-47.

ease of use - i'd have to say the old german P-38! i own one of them and i have to say these things are the easiest to keep on target.

ruggedness - again, the AK is the most ruged weapon i can think of.

i've run out of guns to think of but i think you get my point.

and really how can you compare a m-16 to an M1 abrams MBT, or for that matter a 16 inch deck gun that would cut the tank in 2? the poll was just a bad idea. i refuse pick one specific weapon, simply because it degrades all the benefits of the other weapons i have not choosen.

the atomic bomb

oh really does blowing everything up in about a 5 mile radius fit every situation you might find your self in?

what if your enemy is right next to you. even within 20 yards. please by all means use an atomic bomb, mabey then you'll stop resurecting dead threads with dumb ass posts......

You really ought to eat more fiber, you're getting full. It was goofy answer to a goofy question. Had it been limited to Best rifle, pistol, battle tank, fighter plane etc it could be half ass answerable. Even then that's subject to debate. Now go short yourself accross a high voltage capacitor!

I think the M16 is the best weapon ever.

Cute.

The biggest problem with the AK-47 is that it has a horrible recoil and ultimately it boils down to the fact that the weapon is arguably the best assault rifle ever made imo.

That's just adorable.

Let's start a new poll. What's better, a toothbrush or a basketball?

"best weapons ever!" should be "coolest weapons ever!" and then you'd have a working thread.

What do you mean by best?

For my money a knife, offensive, defensive, universal tool, needs no ammo or fuel
easily made. Kill it, prepare it, carve it up, and even eat with it, Yessirreee knife.

I'd like to add one.

The human brain.

Originally Posted by fizzlooney

You really ought to eat more fiber, you're getting full. It was goofy answer to a goofy question. Had it been limited to Best rifle, pistol, battle tank, fighter plane etc it could be half ass answerable. Even then that's subject to debate. Now go short yourself accross a high voltage capacitor!

lol ok. i'll admit i over-reacted, i've been on so many gun and military forums, that every so once in a while you get some complete retard that comes on and spams around, and, signaturly, lists the atomic bomb as "the best weapon".


it's all very sad

GFY

i know isnt it?

I believe it is the karambit due to easy drawing to attack, high damage against flesh and good variance in the ways you can use it in combat.

in my opinion the AK 47 is the most revolutinary weapon created because of its simplicity and versatility .it can be used by any person who has the least knowledge about how to use a weapon.this is the reason most of the armies or rebel groups around the world use AK 47 as their primary weapon .it also were cheap to make tooo. AK 47 rockssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by yuva

in my opinion the AK 47 is the most revolutinary weapon created because of its simplicity and versatility

There's very little revolutionary about the AK.

it can be used by any person who has the least knowledge about how to use a weapon.

Can't the same be said about any weapon? Or any other piece of equipment?

this is the reason most of the armies or rebel groups around the world use AK 47 as their primary weapon

No it's not.

it also were cheap to make tooo.

Um, practically anything made in the same numbers as the AK would be cheap - it's called economy of scale.

I wouldn't call the Ak47 revolutionary--though it did marry the best of weapons 60 years ago. It's cheap, it's got an excellent caliber round but most of all its reliability is remarkable--while training Iraqi soldiers we'd watch an entire battalion fire on a range without a single jam, or failure to feed--something completely unheard of in my 24 years of US Army with M16 variations. I'm not sure who made their models of Aks, perhaps they got lucky--not all variations are probably made to the same reliable standards. Most amazing is standard cleaning was a whole weapon dip in diesel fuel followed by a couple swabs of motor oil down the barrel and drops into the trigger assembly (some of the NCOs used a lighter oil for the piston and gas hole).

In a perfect world, I would have carried an AK-47 with the promags equivalents and modern optics off my M4A1.

Sounds like AK-47 is winning.


However, if it were most awesome weapon ever, I'd vote the B-52. It's cool like in the way how a classic 1960's Chevy Impala is cool. Not because it's actually more effective. Clearly later bomber designs have made it beyond obsolete now. But it was a flying fortress!!! How cool is that?


But if we're talking best achievement, or best weapon overall, then clearly it's the AK-47. It's made more of a difference to the face of war.

Originally Posted by UN Small Arms Conference

◆ Small arms and light weapons are responsible for the majority—between 60 and 90%, depending on the conflict—of direct conflict deaths, of which there were between 80,000 and 108,000
worldwide in 2003. (Source: Small Arms Survey 2005)

http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/pdf/factsheet_1.pdf



What weapon has killed the most people of all those listed above? Most likely the AK-47.

It's likely that the AK-47 has literally killed more human beings than any other weapon in the whole history of the world. (Unless you allow for broad categories like "the bow" instead of specific bows.... etc.)

Perhaps then I could make a case for the T-34, the first of it's kind to take advantage of sloped armour to give more proctetion to the occupants this tank was the most versatile during WW2 and the most heavily produced. This Soviet designed tank enabled the Russians to defeat the Nazi's on the Eastern Front and to help ultimately to win the war. It was by far and away the best tank design of it's age, it was both extremely effective and very easy to mass produce, and some still argue the best weapon of the entire war. Having intially entered service in 1940 many examples of this tank are still inservice around the world today 73 years later, paying testament to durablility and effectiness.



T-34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems the Soviets had some pretty good ideas for warfare, then.

Too bad they couldn't do so great in other areas.

Originally Posted by kojax

Seems the Soviets had some pretty good ideas for warfare, then.

Well, they might have had some decent ideas with regard to weapons, but those were the guys who, while coming up with T-34 (an evolution of the basically rubbish Christie (USA) tank) also managed, at the same time, to execute their best tank warfare specialists...

This is a childish and ridiculously unrewarding thread. All giving vent to various surmises, "I heards", "my reliable friend says", AK-47 this, M-16 that, all bullshit, when it comes to interpreting the original question. Best weapon/vehicle? WTH kind of comparison allowance is that?

I should have gone to bed instead of coming back here late.......A crock of shit here! jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

A crock of shit here! jocular

I disagree since that counts more as ammunition, than a weapon. I guess you could fling it, but you'd be better off with a trebuchet or catapult and placing it in a cauldron, instead.
Or even leave it in the cow, instead of putting it in a crock and launching the entire cow. That tends to make your opponents tremble (Moreso, if it has been dead for a while.)

Originally Posted by jocular

This is a childish and ridiculously unrewarding thread. All giving vent to various surmises, "I heards", "my reliable friend says", AK-47 this, M-16 that, all bullshit, when it comes to interpreting the original question. Best weapon/vehicle? WTH kind of comparison allowance is that?

The problem is finding a criteria. If we assume the "best weapon" is the one that would have been put to use the most in combat, then the AK-47 wins hands down. It's clearly the most used weapon in modern history of all weapons.

Of course that may give it an unfair advantage, because it's cheaper than the tanks and aircraft listed. So maybe instead of looking at how many of a weapon are in use, we should look at the number of deaths inflicted? If a weapon costs more, but also proportionally improves your army's fighting ability by an amount equal to or greater than the cost, then it should match the AK-47 in terms of how many people it has killed.

A knife is, of course cheaper than any of the listed weapons, and probably more universally carried by soldiers, but it's also not the primary tool that gets used when soldiers kill one another.

Originally Posted by kojax

If we assume the "best weapon" is the one that would have been put to use the most in combat, then the AK-47 wins hands down.

then it should match the AK-47 in terms of how many people it has killed.

Now here's an interesting thought: while I'm not going to dispute the ubiquity of the AK ¹ I wonder how many people they have actually killed - given that it's not particularly accurate ², not (generally) used by trained soldiers (i.e. its reputation was made as a militia/ rebel/ whatever weapon).
Small arms, traditionally, aren't that "effective" as killers in warfare ³.
I just wonder...

1 Just for pedantry's sake no-one uses the AK-47 - the design very quickly evolved into the AKM. Just thought I'd drop that in.
2 Volume of fire, not accuracy, was the requirement.
3 Percentage-wise anyway. Artillery is, supposedly, the killer.

The English longbow.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

The English longbow.

Good for having knights out in France.

Originally Posted by jocular

This is a childish and ridiculously unrewarding thread. All giving vent to various surmises, "I heards", "my reliable friend says", AK-47 this, M-16 that, all bullshit, when it comes to interpreting the original question. Best weapon/vehicle? WTH kind of comparison allowance is that?

I should have gone to bed instead of coming back here late.......A crock of shit here! jocular

Thanks for this. The whole time while reading the thread I was thinking: "What does jocular think of this thread?" Now we know.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by kojax

If we assume the "best weapon" is the one that would have been put to use the most in combat, then the AK-47 wins hands down.

then it should match the AK-47 in terms of how many people it has killed.

Now here's an interesting thought: while I'm not going to dispute the ubiquity of the AK ¹ I wonder how many people they have actually killed - given that it's not particularly accurate ², not (generally) used by trained soldiers (i.e. its reputation was made as a militia/ rebel/ whatever weapon).
Small arms, traditionally, aren't that "effective" as killers in warfare ³.
I just wonder...

The problem is the most effective weapons are either expensive, or require skills. You can give an AK-47 to a common peasant and they instantly become a killing machine. A mediocre killing machine maybe, but if you get enough of those mediocre killing machines together, they can take out a smaller number of excellent killing machines.

It doesn't require a very skillful general to win a war if they have an unlimited budget. But no general ever has an unlimited budget.

1 Just for pedantry's sake no-one uses the AK-47 - the design very quickly evolved into the AKM. Just thought I'd drop that in.
2 Volume of fire, not accuracy, was the requirement.

Well yeah. Accuracy is kind of pointless if the soldier/peasant you're giving it to you isn't a very good aim anyway.

3 Percentage-wise anyway. Artillery is, supposedly, the killer.

That certainly is true in wars that directly involve the USA or another industrial power.

However, effective use of artillery requires training. Mortars are cheap, but soldiers who are trained well enough to use them accurately aren't.

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem is the most effective weapons are either expensive, or require skills.

Um, I'd argue that a weapon isn't "effective" until it's the hands of a skilled user.

You can give an AK-47 to a common peasant and they instantly become a killing machine. A mediocre killing machine maybe, but if you get enough of those mediocre killing machines together, they can take out a smaller number of excellent killing machines.

I suppose... for a given value of "enough".

It doesn't require a very skillful general to win a war if they have an unlimited budget.

That's a disputable claim.
It's not so much what you've got, it's how you use it.
To use your own comment:

Mortars are cheap, but soldiers who are trained well enough to use them accurately aren't.

And commanders who know where/ when to use them are rarer.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem is the most effective weapons are either expensive, or require skills.

Um, I'd argue that a weapon isn't "effective" until it's the hands of a skilled user.

If that were true then skilled warriors would never be beaten by unskilled warriors.

"Effective" use of a weapon is using it in such a manner so that your side wins.

America's highly funded, fairly well trained military got beaten in Vietnam by a comparatively underfunded force using primarily AK-47's as their weapon.

It doesn't require a very skillful general to win a war if they have an unlimited budget.

That's a disputable claim.
It's not so much what you've got, it's how you use it.
To use your own comment:

I'd say it's equal parts both.

A mediocre general with unlimited resources can do like General Grant did in the American Civil War. He can suffer greater losses than his opponent in nearly every battle, and still ultimately win the war.

Originally Posted by kojax

If that were true then skilled warriors would never be beaten by unskilled warriors.

Oops, no.
Your own comment: A mediocre killing machine maybe, but if you get enough of those mediocre killing machines together, they can take out a smaller number of excellent killing machines.

"Effective" use of a weapon is using it in such a manner so that your side wins.

Refuted by your own comment about Grant...

America's highly funded, fairly well trained military got beaten in Vietnam by a comparatively underfunded force using primarily AK-47's as their weapon.

Not really.
The US lost politically, not militarily.

A mediocre general with unlimited resources can do like General Grant did in the American Civil War. He can suffer greater losses than his opponent in nearly every battle, and still ultimately win the war.

That would be men, not materiel.
Men are significantly less budget-restrained (especially in non- or pre-industrial societies).
There's a difference between unlimited resources and unlimited budget (which was your original claim).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by kojax

If that were true then skilled warriors would never be beaten by unskilled warriors.

Oops, no.
Your own comment: A mediocre killing machine maybe, but if you get enough of those mediocre killing machines together, they can take out a smaller number of excellent killing machines.

I don't see how that refutes it.

"Effective" use of a weapon is using it in such a manner so that your side wins.

Refuted by your own comment about Grant...

What do you mean? Grant won.

America's highly funded, fairly well trained military got beaten in Vietnam by a comparatively underfunded force using primarily AK-47's as their weapon.

Not really.
The US lost politically, not militarily.

Political victory is the only kind of victory that matters. All other forms of victory are make believe. Because all other forms of victory change nothing.

If you go to war and fail to achieve a political goal, then you've just killed a whole lot of people for nothing.

If you treat it like a football game, where killing 50 enemy soldiers and only losing 40 soldiers makes us 10 points ahead, then you're ignoring the relative abundances of recruits. The enemy might have troops to spare, and less empathy/conscience about losing troops than you have. What, do you think they're going to stop fighting because they looked at the scoreboard and saw they were behind? Like, the humiliation of being failures in your eyes will just be too much for them?

A mediocre general with unlimited resources can do like General Grant did in the American Civil War. He can suffer greater losses than his opponent in nearly every battle, and still ultimately win the war.

That would be men, not materiel.
Men are significantly less budget-restrained (especially in non- or pre-industrial societies).
There's a difference between unlimited resources and unlimited budget (which was your original claim).

I guess. However, with an unlimited budget you can hire an unlimited number of mercenaries. So I tend to look upon the two things as interchangeable.

It's a good point, though. Clearly the Taliban isn't offering its soldiers an impressive salary to get them to fight. They've got lots and lots of cannon fodder and not a lot of nice gear to give them.

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't see how that refutes it.

It's quite simple: "effective" use of weapon is one thing: swamping the enemy, even up until they run out of ammunition, is achievable while using weapons non-effectively.

What do you mean? Grant won.

Um, your statement was that Grant threw men at the "problem" - not that weapons were used "effectively".

Political victory is the only kind of victory that matters. All other forms of victory are make believe. Because all other forms of victory change nothing.

Except that political victories have little to do with what weapons are used in the field, and whether or not they're used effectively.
I.e. "America's highly funded, fairly well trained military" was NOT "beaten in Vietnam by a comparatively underfunded force using primarily AK-47's as their weapon" - the victory was "won" in the corridors of power as it were.

I guess. However, with an unlimited budget you can hire an unlimited number of mercenaries. So I tend to look upon the two things as interchangeable.

Until those mercenaries realise that they too are being "used ineffectively" and won't let you squander their lives too.

It's a good point, though. Clearly the Taliban isn't offering its soldiers an impressive salary to get them to fight. They've got lots and lots of cannon fodder and not a lot of nice gear to give them.

Hah!
I remember reading a Soviet publication, written at the time of the Falklands War - they accused the British Army ¹ of being "mercenaries" because the pay scale for we Brits was significantly higher than that of the corresponding Soviet troops. This was, presumably, a political/ economic ploy to keep Soviet pay low by convincing their troops that they fought for the honour of it and patriotism and that "mere cash" shouldn't enter into the equation.


1 Just a note for non-Brits. We have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force. We do NOT have a "Royal Army".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

1 Just for pedantry's sake no-one uses the AK-47 - the design very quickly evolved into the AKM. Just thought I'd drop that in.
2 Volume of fire, not accuracy, was the requirement.
3 Percentage-wise anyway. Artillery is, supposedly, the killer.

Spray and pray- I'm not a fan. I prefer aim.
But then, I was also Artillery, U.S. Army. King of Battle.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't see how that refutes it.

It's quite simple: "effective" use of weapon is one thing: swamping the enemy, even up until they run out of ammunition, is achievable while using weapons non-effectively.

The tactic would be impossible if the firearms you gave those men cost too much money.

Throwing a large number of inferior troops at a group of superior troops is strategically quite effective. If you lose 6 pawns, but manage to kill the enemy's Queen, I'd say you've done quite well for yourself.

You're looking for the wrong kind of "efficiency". I'm looking for the kind of "efficiency" where you win, and you're looking for the kind of "efficiency" that satisfies some sort of abstract calculation. Abstract calculations are great, but practical calculations win wars.

What do you mean? Grant won.

Um, your statement was that Grant threw men at the "problem" - not that weapons were used "effectively".

Yeah.... except the strategy worked. Southern troops were better troops. They were more disciplined and obedient to Lee, and for the most part they weren't there for the money, and certainly not responding to a draft, which made them more willing to do things a Union soldier wouldn't.

Grant was using inferior troops against superior troops. His predecessor had been losing in spite of numerical advantage and better equipment. Grant finally figured it out.


If you don't account for the relative combat value of your soldiers, then just counting the deaths doesn't tell you whether you've won a strategic victory or not. If the USA loses one Green Beret in the process of killing 10 kids the Taliban has forced into service from a local village, that's not a strategic victory. It's a strategic loss.

Political victory is the only kind of victory that matters. All other forms of victory are make believe. Because all other forms of victory change nothing.

Except that political victories have little to do with what weapons are used in the field, and whether or not they're used effectively.
I.e. "America's highly funded, fairly well trained military" was NOT "beaten in Vietnam by a comparatively underfunded force using primarily AK-47's as their weapon" - the victory was "won" in the corridors of power as it were.

We lost Vietnam because we gave up hope of winning. We were losing a small number of more valuable troops in order to kill a larger number of less valuable troops. They were less valuable for two reasons:

1 -) The enemy invested very little in each of them. Cheap gun, minimal training, and no life insurance pay out.
2-) The enemy had a virtually unlimited supply. Vietcong would simply walk into a village and shoot the people if they didn't join.


Sometime people talk about the "severed head". I'm pretty sure hope is the severed head. Whatever makes people give up hope of winning is what leads to a final surrender.

Originally Posted by kojax

The tactic would be impossible if the firearms you gave those men cost too much money.

What?
If you have sufficient men, sufficiently motivated, they don't need firearms.

Throwing a large number of inferior troops at a group of superior troops is strategically quite effective. If you lose 6 pawns, but manage to kill the enemy's Queen, I'd say you've done quite well for yourself.

QED.
Where does cost of firearms factor into that?

You're looking for the wrong kind of "efficiency". I'm looking for the kind of "efficiency" where you win, and you're looking for the kind of "efficiency" that satisfies some sort of abstract calculation. Abstract calculations are great, but practical calculations win wars.

We are talking about "effectiveness" of individual weapons here.
By your reasoning (and, as hinted at above, I'm not disputing that) "effective" use of a rifle would include using it solely as a club - provided the numbers and motivation are there.

We lost Vietnam because we gave up hope of winning.

The politicians gave up hope of winning - largely because they interfered too much with the conduct of the war - no clear aims, political restrictions on targets...
It wasn't conducted as a war anywhere except where men were actually dying.

We were losing a small number of more valuable troops in order to kill a larger number of less valuable troops. They were less valuable for two reasons:
1 -) The enemy invested very little in each of them. Cheap gun, minimal training, and no life insurance pay out.
2-) The enemy had a virtually unlimited supply. Vietcong would simply walk into a village and shoot the people if they didn't join.

See previous comment.
And then take a look a similar (although not at the same scale) campaign - Malaya.
That showed, not only that it was possible to win, but that it was practical to do so.

The AK-47 is a symbol of liberation, throughout our world today. It was first proven during the Vietnam War, and was used as a freedom symbol for Osama Bin Laden --- in one of his videos --- while target practicing with his AK "Krinkov."

I don't think Bin Laden used an AK because it was a symbol of liberation. I believe he used it because that it what was given to his people and it was one of the few weapons that could survive in that environment.

Originally Posted by Erno86

The AK-47 is a symbol of liberation, throughout our world today. It was first proven during the Vietnam War, and was used as a freedom symbol for Osama Bin Laden --- in one of his videos --- while target practicing with his AK "Krinkov."

Please stop posting.

Either way...I still believe that OBL used the AK as a propaganda tool, for his video and political "terrorism" agenda. I voted for the AK on the best weapon poll, but surely there are more terrifying weapons out there --- with most people having probably never seen before {and I can recall at least one similar, largely unknown, weapon of mass destruction} --- which would give "Genius Duck" plenty too quack about; but I'm not willing too divulge at this time. The AK/AKM is a more reliable firearm, compared to the M-16/AR-15. Both weapons have their drawbacks --- I own and cherish both --- but I will still rely on my trusty AK's, over my AR's, in certain dire circumstances; if need be.

aside from nucs and biological-chemical, smartbombs, and missiles:

Sooner or later, you need "boots on the ground".
Then:
The best weapon is a well trained motivated soldier.
In combat, one special forces soldier was worth well over ten of me.
.............
If the criteria is kill ratio, maybe the 19 9/11 suicide pilots et.al. win(1:157)(pretty damned good?). Which would make civilian airliners the best weapon in the hands of motivated soldiers?
and, you don't gotta give these guys no retirement pay
from a different perspective, those guys were heroes

Originally Posted by Erno86

Either way...I still believe that OBL used the AK as a propaganda tool, for his video and political "terrorism" agenda.

Of course he did, just as we use show military members using our weapons in recruiting ads. One irony of your statement is that AK47 are usually part of the conventional tactics.

The Viet Nam experience began with use of the M-14 battle rifle, not even listed as a choice in the Poll, which replaced the Garand. It was basically similar, except it used a removable box magazine, as opposed to the 8-round "clips" (no wonder the word became popular) of the Garand. As that endeavor progressed, Eugene Stoner's brainchild was introduced, the M-16, to replace the old, heavy, .308-calibered M-14 with the 5.56mm/.223 cal. round, which was much smaller, lighter, and less powerful. I have often heard Vets state that when a fallen comrade was found to have an M-14, they traded rifles with the guy, if they had M-16s.

M-14 was also produced as M1-A, a non-full automatic version, semi-auto, this being used in training and also is the "civilian" version of the rifle. .308 caliber was developed to replace the .30-06 of the Garand, having a slightly shorter cartridge case, better suited to full-auto operation, almost as powerful as it's predecessor. Both Garand and M-14 were said to have the most inherently accurate barrels of any battle rifle ever made. Numerous 1000-yard matches were won with them.

Reloading the Garand was risky in itself: a loaded clip of 8-rounds was pressed downward into the gaping opening of the top of the receiver, the bolt of which sprang forward chambering a round when the clip bottomed; unfortunately, pieces of pressing-down thumbs were sometimes chambered also! The other drawback was, upon firing the last round, Garand expulsed it's clip with a loud "clang", easily overheard by adversaries, who then of course knew a soldier's rifle was EMPTY! Garand clips moved about our household when I was a kid, toys brought home by my Dad, who as a Tool & Die Maker, built many die-sets to blank out clips, which he had to test before shipping; the clips thus produced would be discarded unless kept for "junior".

M-14/M1-A used a massive steel, 20-round magazine; I have seen 30-rounders. I once experienced a detonated round in the chamber of mine, which blew out the "guts" of the magazine, remaining rounds lying on the ground, mag stayed in place in the rifle, bottom of the bolt, weakest area was blown away, exposing the bent firing pin and extractor. The bolt held in place however, had it broken out the rear of the receiver, it likely would have killed me! A huge report, not normal, I immediately dropped the rifle from my hands, felt my face for damage, no pain present except in the head! I never found the follower from the magazine; the long spring from within it was found about 20 feet away. These were DAMN STOUT guns. I replaced the bolt, and it functioned just as well as it ever had! jocular

I really loved the m14
nothing sexual of course
but it almost always did what i wanted of it
I was much more adept at taking it apart, cleaning and oiling it and reassembling it than I ever was at undoing my lover's bras connectors.
And shooting it was a real pleasure.
I once had to drive a duce and a half down to ft mead with a load of m14s----------the sarge in charge told me to dump them on the pile in the parking lot--IT WAS RAINING-----I almost cried
What a waste

Sculp, I'm glad to hear others appreciated those rifles! Springfield Armory assembled many, possibly thousands, from GI parts, and sold them publicly. They are still in demand, expensive as hell. Parts were made by many suppliers to the gov't, of course. I always heard the bolts made by TRW were the best obtainable. Years back, perhaps late '80s or so, the Chinese took it to mind to copy and sell M1-As which I now forget the Model Name, but they were available at all the gun shows, first I became aware of them, they could be had for $500 or so, when REAL M1-As were at least $1,000. I actually owned a Chinese version at one time. I took it apart, learning that while they copied the hex-headed gas cylinder cap, the threads used were metric, and would not fit the American gun! I think, also, they had a funkier flash hider tyhan M-14. The M-14 was a LONG rifle, made even more so by the extra-long flash hider! My last one went to the Nephew, as I began "thinning" out- you can't take prized possessions with you! (damn it!) jocular

jocular - Did you ever find out what was the cause of the M14/M1-A premature detonation?

Originally Posted by Erno86

jocular - Did you ever find out what was the cause of the M14/M1-A premature detonation?

Not positively, but I suspect an overload of powder. I have handloaded untold tens of thousands of rounds of pistol and rifle ammunition over the years, thought I was always pretty cautious and observant of areas for potential mistakes. Using most common slow-burning rifle powders intended for the .308 caliber, the cases are nearly full with average loads, so I really am not sure......the wrong powder, of course, would do it. Pretty unnerving experience, even for me, having experimented with things explosive extensively.

Thanks for asking, though! jocular

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by kojax

The tactic would be impossible if the firearms you gave those men cost too much money.

What?
If you have sufficient men, sufficiently motivated, they don't need firearms.

Sure.... if you have billions of them or something. I guess.

Let's stay in the realm of reality.

You're looking for the wrong kind of "efficiency". I'm looking for the kind of "efficiency" where you win, and you're looking for the kind of "efficiency" that satisfies some sort of abstract calculation. Abstract calculations are great, but practical calculations win wars.

We are talking about "effectiveness" of individual weapons here.
By your reasoning (and, as hinted at above, I'm not disputing that) "effective" use of a rifle would include using it solely as a club - provided the numbers and motivation are there.

How often in military history have the numbers and motivation been there to win with clubs?

How often in military history have sufficient numbers and motivation been present to win with AK-47's?

We lost Vietnam because we gave up hope of winning.

The politicians gave up hope of winning - largely because they interfered too much with the conduct of the war - no clear aims, political restrictions on targets...
It wasn't conducted as a war anywhere except where men were actually dying.

And that's the problem with American military thinking. America thinks it can continually redefine what a "war" is.

The broader, probably more universal definition of war is: An attempt to achieve a political objective by force of arms.

So, to win you just need to:

1) - Have a political objective.
2) - Achieve it by force of arms.

There is no 3.

If the enemy stood down, or wasn't sure they wanted to win, or got negotiated into standing down by a bigger party, or........ whatever. They still lost.

They still failed to achieve their political objective. And since the whole purpose of war is to achieve a political objective by force of arms, that means they failed at war.

We were losing a small number of more valuable troops in order to kill a larger number of less valuable troops. They were less valuable for two reasons:
1 -) The enemy invested very little in each of them. Cheap gun, minimal training, and no life insurance pay out.
2-) The enemy had a virtually unlimited supply. Vietcong would simply walk into a village and shoot the people if they didn't join.

See previous comment.
And then take a look a similar (although not at the same scale) campaign - Malaya.
That showed, not only that it was possible to win, but that it was practical to do so.

I went ahead and researched that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

It seems the reason they succeeded is because they went to the villages that were supplying the food to the rebels, rounded them up, and put them in camps with barbed wire around them.

Originally Posted by wiki

Later, General Sir Harold Briggs, the British Army's Director of Operations in Malaya, developed an overall strategy known as the Briggs Plan. Its central tenet was that the best way to defeat an insurgency, such as the government was facing, was to cut the insurgents off from their supporters amongst the population. In addition the Brigg's plan also recognised the inhospitable nature of the Malayan jungle. A major part of the strategy involved targeting the MLNA food supply, which Briggs recognised came from three main sources: camps within the Malayan jungle where land was cleared to provide food, aboriginal jungle dwellers who could supply the MLNA with food gathered within the jungle and the MLNA supporters within the 'squatter' communities which lived on the edge of the jungle.^[8]
The Briggs Plan was multifaceted, with one aspect which has become particularly well known: the forced relocation of some 500,000 rural Malayans, including 400,000 Chinese, from squatter communities on the fringes of the forests into guarded camps called New Villages. These villages were newly constructed in most cases, and were surrounded by barbed wire, police posts and floodlit areas, meant to keep the inhabitants in and the guerrillas out. People resented this at first, but some soon became content with the better living standards in the villages.^[

A while back, I started a thread about doing that in Afghanistan, which earned me no shortage of disdain. It's nice to be vindicated by an example from real life history.

Originally Posted by kojax

Sure.... if you have billions of them or something. I guess.

Oh please.
All you need is more men than the enemy have bullets.
If it's a Company then you don't need billions, do you?

Let's stay in the realm of reality.

Ah right. This from the guy who proposed "unlimited resources".
All I did was run with it.

How often in military history have the numbers and motivation been there to win with clubs?

Um, how close was Rorke's Drift, for example?
How many guns were used by the "bad guys" at Isandlwana?

How often in military history have sufficient numbers and motivation been present to win with AK-47's?

What?

I went ahead and researched that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

It seems the reason they succeeded is because they went to the villages that were supplying the food to the rebels, rounded them up, and put them in camps with barbed wire around them.

Yes... I think you've sorta misunderstood what sort of "camps" they were. There's a reason they were called New Villages.

A while back, I started a thread about doing that in Afghanistan, which earned me no shortage of disdain. It's nice to be vindicated by an example from real life history.

What's really funny is that the US army publishes no end of material that continually holds up Malaya as the only way to do it. And then persists in ignoring its own recommendations.

Originally Posted by Erno86

jocular - Did you ever find out what was the cause of the M14/M1-A premature detonation?

Truly, no offense intended, as your question was serious, and I understood the basis of it.

However, it put me in gales of laughter for about five minutes.

If we're allowing "best for its era" instead of just best in a modern war, could I put in a vote for the Ulfberht sword used in many viking battles?

Ulfberht - Secrets of the Viking Sword - 1000 years ahead of it's time, page 1
Apparently it was a really good sword for its time.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

How often in military history have the numbers and motivation been there to win with clubs?

Um, how close was Rorke's Drift, for example?
How many guns were used by the "bad guys" at Isandlwana?

[/quote]

I should have qualified the question by asking how often in "Modern" military history has the tactic worked. I'll admit it was a workable tactic in the 1800's, prior to the advent of automatic weapons (well.... maybe the Gatling gun had been invented...)

You could also point to instances in the same century when building a wooden fort made the difference in a battle. Or breeding better horses. One of General Patton's accomplishments in the early 1900's was designing a better sabre for use in the Cavalry.

Weapons change, and then tactical realities change too.

How often in military history have sufficient numbers and motivation been present to win with AK-47's?

What?

That part was meant as a rhetorical question.

again best weapon for what purpose?

You're looking for debate constraints which were not put in place by the OP. For instance, I probably wouldn't want a Stratofortress if I were being mugged. Nor would I want to fight the Luftwaffe with a flamethrower.

I think you can interpret it as, "What is your favorite weapon?" though I took the approach of "What was an historically important weapon?"

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You're looking for debate constraints which were not put in place by the OP. For instance, I probably wouldn't want a Stratofortress if I were being mugged. Nor would I want to fight the Luftwaffe with a flamethrower.

I think you can interpret it as, "What is your favorite weapon?" though I took the approach of "What was an historically important weapon?"

The shovel. Best tool ever devised. Kill an adversary, bury the bastard, using only one tool. jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You're looking for debate constraints which were not put in place by the OP. For instance, I probably wouldn't want a Stratofortress if I were being mugged. Nor would I want to fight the Luftwaffe with a flamethrower.

I think you can interpret it as, "What is your favorite weapon?" though I took the approach of "What was an historically important weapon?"

The shovel. Best tool ever devised. Kill an adversary, bury the bastard, using only one tool. jocular

What about an ax? You could do pretty much all of the above and cut firewood.

Originally Posted by jocular

The shovel. Best tool ever devised. Kill an adversary, bury the bastard, using only one tool. jocular

But you have to be really lucky to bury the tank your adversary was in.

Originally Posted by babe

What about an ax? You could do pretty much all of the above and cut firewood.

Very true. I guess it would depend on the location; firewood is useless here, hot as hell most of the time! joc

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by jocular

The shovel. Best tool ever devised. Kill an adversary, bury the bastard, using only one tool. jocular

But you have to be really lucky to bury the tank your adversary was in.

Tanks are disallowed the civilian by his government. jocular

Where was "civilian" specified?

Strategically placed prostitutes with STDs.

Here's what happens when novices strike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z42fchrzhHY&feature=player_detailpage

Originally Posted by shlunka

Strategically placed prostitutes with STDs.

That was really funny!!! Kudo's!. Very clever.

The sword. It's got no use but to kill. Most items you can use as weapons have duel uses, but a sword is probably the first human item ever created for no purpose but to kill.

What? A sword doesn't have multiple uses, but spears and bows do have multiple uses? What am I missing here?

At least a sword can be used for domestic tasks. It's not quite a suitable as a knife or an axe, but it might do in a pinch.

Originally Posted by kojax

What? A sword doesn't have multiple uses, but spears and bows do have multiple uses? What am I missing here?

Hunting & fishing.

Yes perhaps I should have been clearer; those things can be used for hunting in terms of sustenance. But the sword is the first weapon designed solely to kill other humans. It's purpose has never been anything else [yeah you can hunt with it, like you can kill someone with a heavy book, but no one says that's what it was ever made for] but to kill another human being.

Human brain. Soft yet able to think of scenarios that can be used to end the world and use a body to carry it out.

I vote for the human brain too. "A weapon is a tool for changing an enemy's mind" was a quote I came across and liked. Ultimately if you can't change their minds then even killing them is no guarantee of victory - as it may harden and spread resistance rather than end it. Weapons can be improvised; the will and smarts to use them well resides in the brain.

An interesting element in the SF writings of Donald Kingsbury ("Geta" and "The Moon Goddess and the Son") stuck with me - pointing out the historical swing back and forth between the elite professional army and the peasant army. The Longbow was one example where the peasant army suddenly found itself armed with a weapon that could defeat the expensively equipped and trained professional army. Elsewhere peasant soldiers used heavy hammers to knock the armored knights off their horses and knives to finish them off. Maybe the AK-47 would be another example - cheap, abundant, easy to use and popular in revolutions and uprisings around the world. Shoulder launched SAM's in the hands of Afghani peasants took out the expensive Soviet aircraft back when it was okay to arm Muslim militants. When cheap chinese SAMs, that can track stealthed aircraft hit the market then billion dollar weapons can be taken down by something costing only thousands and the whole balance shifts again. I can't remember the quote from Kingsbury but it was along the lines of ... when the elite professional armies ruled, the peasants were downtrodden and oppressed and lived in misery. When cheap weapons gave them the means to rise up it was a bloodbath. It didn't always play out that way - the longbow may have been used in uprisings but it's more famous as one weapon amongst many within a professional army. Even if many soldiers who used them were 'reserves' and draftees.

Originally Posted by jacate

Human brain. Soft yet able to think of scenarios that can be used to end the world and use a body to carry it out.

Great response!

Originally Posted by JohnDoe

Yes perhaps I should have been clearer; those things can be used for hunting in terms of sustenance. But the sword is the first weapon designed solely to kill other humans. It's purpose has never been anything else [yeah you can hunt with it, like you can kill someone with a heavy book, but no one says that's what it was ever made for] but to kill another human being.

When you put it that way, it makes a lot more sense. I guess a sword really isn't suitable for killing anything other than another human being.

And it dominated warfare for a long time.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

I vote for the human brain too. "A weapon is a tool for changing an enemy's mind" was a quote I came across and liked. Ultimately if you can't change their minds then even killing them is no guarantee of victory - as it may harden and spread resistance rather than end it. Weapons can be improvised; the will and smarts to use them well resides in the brain.

Sounds like a good definition for "best weapon". What weapon is most effective at changing enemies' minds?

IED's have a tremendous impact on morale. Maybe they're a contender?

Still an ill stated question- the end

FEAR is the best weapon.
Use it wisely, and win without firing a shot.

Sculptor, I think Fear cuts both ways - fear of a brutal invader doesn't necessarily lead to surrender, it very often motivates defenders to fight harder. Plenty of examples where resistance has lived on in the face of overwhelming military superiority, ultimately to victory. I think for an army fighting on it's own soil it tends to strengthen resolve. For an army fighting on enemy soil it tends to undermine resolve. Tactically it can win a battle, but strategically it can backfire and lose the war.

Kojax, specific weapons in specific circumstances may make them a contender for changing a particular enemy's mind but my point is that it's not
the weapon so much as the way it's used that makes it effective.

PS I remember now where the quote came from - a character in a novel rather than someone real and famous. One of Lois McMaster Bujold's "Vorkosigan" stories. Very enjoyable and sometimes surprisingly insightful. Skirmishes and battles more often won by being smarter and trickier, mind against mind, rather than better armed, or stronger or meaner.

Ken: ergo, wisely instead of brutishly.

Maybe 'brutal' was the wrong word; 'implacable'? Although maybe not. Air strikes are brutal. Taking out vital infrastructure like water, electricity, roads and bridges - even without direct casualties - is brutal. Cutting off trade is brutal. It doesn't have to be malicious, vicious, hate-in-your-face and mean to be brutal. Carefully calculated and detached, from afar, can do brutal as well as any.

The real key to victory is surely in the options you leave open to an enemy apart from death or unconditional surrender; there's a strong chance they will find a way to choose neither anyway. "Shock and Awe" can win battles but won't it won't win the war. The mess in Iraq seems like a bad example of confusing best weapons ever and overwhelming military superiority with certain victory. Sun Tsu could have told them why that isn't enough a couple of thousand years ago.

But I agree that every military commander could do with a good dose of 'wisely'.

Our intelligence is our best thing to use to figure out ways to solve problems before they start.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Our intelligence is our best thing to use to figure out ways to solve problems before they start.

Absolutely!
Nuke 'em before they even think of fighting us!

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Our intelligence is our best thing to use to figure out ways to solve problems before they start.

Absolutely!
Nuke 'em before they even think of fighting us!

I know you must be joking!!

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Our intelligence is our best thing to use to figure out ways to solve problems before they start.

Absolutely!
Nuke 'em before they even think of fighting us!

I hope you are joking.

What exactly do you mean by 'best weapon ever'?

The most destructive -> Nuclear weapons

Best designed -> Warglaive of Azzinoth ^_^

The most useful weapon -> Human brain

But to he honest with you, there are no 'best' weapons.. I liked Tesla idea , PBS: Tesla - Master of Lightning: A Weapon to End War

Originally Posted by HB3l1

I liked Tesla idea , PBS: Tesla - Master of Lightning: A Weapon to End War

Unfortunately that particular invention is a good example of the woo side of Tesla's personality.
Despite large numbers of web sites proclaiming that Tesla was the first person to build (or even conceive of) a particle beam weapon it turns out that Tesla's "particles" were small droplets of molten metal (lead IIRC).
And the velocity required to project those droplets the claimed 250 miles would have vapourised them almost instantaneously as they exited the vacuum.
It was one of a number of schemes that he claimed he'd tested, offered to various customers/ nations and failed completely to deliver hardware for.
While smart he was also close to batshit crazy in later life.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by HB3l1

I liked Tesla idea , PBS: Tesla - Master of Lightning: A Weapon to End War

Unfortunately that particular invention is a good example of the woo side of Tesla's personality.
Despite large numbers of web sites proclaiming that Tesla was the first person to build (or even conceive of) a particle beam weapon it turns out that Tesla's "particles" were small droplets of molten metal (lead IIRC).
And the velocity required to project those droplets the claimed 250 miles would have vapourised them almost instantaneously as they exited the vacuum.
It was one of a number of schemes that he claimed he'd tested, offered to various customers/ nations and failed completely to deliver hardware for.
While smart he was also close to batshit crazy in later life.

Heh I didn't know that, although it was to good to be true but after all he was the first person to invent an idea for this kind of weapon.. Does a particle beam weapon actually exist or it is still a science fiction, as far as I know Ballistic missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is closest to the definition of 'particle beam weapon'..

It's not hard to build a particle beam weapon. The trouble is it will only work in the vacuum of space.

There's hypothetical ideas about how to build one that works on Earth by using a laser or something to cut a path through the air. But.... if you had a laser that could really do that, you could probably just kill people with the laser.


On that note, I think a laser would be the best weapon ever, if it were used to permanently blind enemy soldiers. If you maim them in that manner, then they can't fight anymore, and they're not dead, so the enemy has to keep supplying them with food or finish them off. However, like many other "too effective" weapons or tactics, it is banned by treaties.

In its category... the FAMAS

Originally Posted by Alizée

In its category... the FAMAS

...and the Austrians say the Steyr AUG and the British say the L86 and the Americans say the M16...

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

... . The mess in Iraq seems like a bad example of confusing best weapons ever and overwhelming military superiority with certain victory.

But I agree that every military commander could do with a good dose of 'wisely'.

We were badly/stupidly out maneuvered by Qasem Soleimani and the quds force in Iraq.
10 years of wasted effort and billions of dollars down the drain.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (yuk yuk) and say the best weapon ever was the pointy stick. The first ever stand off weapon. It was low maintainence, low cost...Didn't require cleaning. Had "multi-role" capablilty as a weapon, walking cane, low hanging fruit knocker offer, or campfire fuel...and allowed humans to kill things at a distance, with much less danger to themselves.

Anyone know why there seems to be an intense ongoing interest both among civilian and military weapons fanciers for the "bullpup" design of rifle?

If unaware, can't answer therefore, bullpup is a design which places the actuating device, the trigger, up forward of the breech, or area where the "action" occurs. This shortens the weapon noticeably, but since most such rifles, bullpup or not, are of the self-feeding design, either semi- or full-automatic in type of fire, the left-handed shooter is ill-advised to fire a bullpup, as the ejected spent shell casings wind up in his/her left ear!

Steyr overcame that anomaly in their later AUGs by providing a receiver having ejection "windows" on both sides of the receiver. Trouble is, two opposed bolts must be provided, one ejecting right, the other ejecting left.

I kind of know this shit about the AUG, 'cause I just HAD to have one. Plastic garbage, highly priced, over-rated, sky-high demand. Go figure that one, too. jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Anyone know why there seems to be an intense ongoing interest both among civilian and military weapons fanciers for the "bullpup" design of rifle?

Bullpups are considerably shorter and less bulky weapon for a given barrel length.
Which is an advantage for troops who get carried around in space-restricted vehicles.

the left-handed shooter is ill-advised to fire a bullpup, as the ejected spent shell casings wind up in his/her left ear!

Unless he buys a weapon that has been designed with left-handed shooters in mind.
The FN2000 being one such, as is the Tavor.

These weapons are designed, in the majority of cases, for military use: and, generally, militaries will train people to shoot right-handed ¹. Selling to the military is where the money is.

1 Because (apparently), training manuals and the RSM's bloody-mindedness aside, most people, even a majority of left-handers, are still right eye dominant.

Then there's the Kel-Tec RFB .308 that ejects out the front, for both lefties and righties..just like the FN2000

Why do you weird Americans insist on calling it .308?
It's 7.62 x 51 NATO.

Maybe you just like to rub it in that managed to screw up NATO's ammunition/ small arms procurement in the early 50s (mainly thanks to Studtler [from memory] and his intransigence).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Why do you weird Americans insist on calling it .308?
It's 7.62 x 51 NATO.

Maybe you just like to rub it in that managed to screw up NATO's ammunition/ small arms procurement in the early 50s (mainly thanks to Studtler [from memory] and his intransigence).

I don't believe we insist......Winchester historically developed the round as a replacement for the .30-06; they called it .308 Winchester caliber. Ballistically it is as near to .30-06 as can be, with a considerably shorter cartridge case, more efficiently useable in full-automatic weapons.

Aside from popular name trends, if I go up to my friendly Sporting Goods salesperson and ask if they have 7.62 X 51, they will simply stare. All the boxed ammunition for civilian purchase, made by the popular makers, that I have seen, were labeled .308 Winchester.

I happen to be quite partial to the round, and really don't care what YOU prefer to call it! jocular

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Then there's the Kel-Tec RFB .308 that ejects out the front, for both lefties and righties..just like the FN2000

Nice vid! This was a new one on me; I have not had entirely enjoyable experiences with Kel-Tec products, so have not kept up on developments. Noted the absence of muzzle flash and smoke, wonder if they were firing down-loaded rounds in deference to the shorter, lighter-weight weapon? The M-14/M1-A rifle of military origin is quite heavy, and produces a recoil level somewhat visibly similar to that in the vid. Thank you! joc

Originally Posted by jocular

Ballistically it is as near to .30-06 as can be, with a considerably shorter cartridge case, more efficiently useable in full-automatic weapons.

Whut?
The 7.62 NATO was NOT designed with fully-auto fire in mind (for shoulder weapons at least).

I don't believe we insist

Um,

Aside from popular name trends, if I go up to my friendly Sporting Goods salesperson and ask if they have 7.62 X 51, they will simply stare. All the boxed ammunition for civilian purchase, made by the popular makers, that I have seen, were labeled .308 Winchester.

QED.