first off some facts, the mosin nagant shoots a 7.62x54r cartridge, which when loaded too hot military specs, can travel 5000 fps, the 7.92mm k98k round cant. the bullet is 174 grain (standard fmjbt) so the round is heavy enough to kill anythin on the planet.

5,000, eh?

Divide by two and you're closer.

 

ZF-

 

 Next time try facts. The above is way out fantasy. Of course there is the chance you were trying to be humorous (rather than just succeeding), but really. That was just silly.

To address the initial quesiton:

 

While the AK has it's points, it very much lacks in ergonomics and accuracy. Reliability is all well and good if we're assuming untrained militia that doesn't maintain the weapon, but when they meet trained troops they will get wiped out.

 

The best rifle in the best hands is probably what's worth considering. I'd say the FAL is a pretty damned good choice (since I think we need to pick something which has seen a lot of combat and been produced en masse).

 

Granted a case for a 5.56 rifle could be made, such as the M16 (or variants), but I think the direct impingement system goes a bit to far in tanking the reliability. Give me a weapon with comparable ergonomics to an M16 but with a piston gas system and now you're talking.

"Mauser."  The Mauser has served with:

Germany

Spain

Sweden

United States (1903 Springfield).

 

Yes, the SMLE served with lots of nations, too, but many of them were affiliated with the British Commonwealth, so the choice of SMLE variant was as much driven by politics and logistics as technical details.  The Mauser served with diverse armies because it was a technically good weapon.

 

So, I'd give the edge to the Mauser over the SMLE.

 

HOWEVER, that does not mean it's a "better" weapon than the SMLE or the M-1...only that it was more prolific and long-lived.

 

Second place, arguably first place would go to the AK-47.  For the same reasons, it's long-lived and prolific.  Is it "better" than the M-16, not necessarily.  But I'm not basing my call on a weapon's ergonomics or other factors, simply did a lot of people use it, successfully, for a long time.

 

In the case of the Mauser and the AK-47, the answer is clearly "Yes."

 

I'd say a second-tier Main Battle Rifle candidate would be the FAL...multiple users, long-lived.....more sales and use than the UM-14.  (Contemporary Era).

 

For WWII I'd give the nod, of course, to the Mauser, but honourable mention to SMLE....and say the most revolutionary, PRACTICAL weapon weapon was the M-1.  The most revolutionary weapon would be the Sturm Gewehr series, for inventing, as it were, the "Assault Rifle."  But practically their influence was very small, because so few were produced.  It's only in the Post-War era that the Assault Rifle comes into its own.

 

I wouldn't give much credit to the FG-42.  To me, an unlettred fire arms person, it's just a German M-14.  An automatic "rifle" firing a 7.62/7.92 mm round simply is either:

1) Too heavy, if it can stand the auto fire; or

2) too fragile, because it's an individual weapon, not a designed automatic weapon.

The M-14 suffered from the same problem, too big a round, too light a weapon.  Weapons like the M-1 and the FAL were better, semi-automatic was better for a, relatively light, rifle.  To fire a "full-sized" round (30-06/7.62 NATO/7.92 Mauser/7.62  Mosin-Nagant) on full auto really requires that the weapon be something like the BREN/BAR/Browning M-1917/19 or the MG-42...a fairly heavy weapon designed to be fired full automatic, and consequently rather heavy and requiring two men to operate effectively.  So really, to me the FG-42 is a non-starter as a "great" weapon.