Ambush Where EVER did you run into gastube problems with AK? That is a STEEL TUBE. I'm quite sure that you really haveto go out of your wau to damage that weapon. While m16 may be nice to carry it takes too much of maintainance to be gretaest of the great. I'd venture to G3 /Ak47 famileis for the greatest. 7-9" AVERAGE on 100m meaning 17.5cm-22.5cm average. IF you are firign weapons that have been fired too much then maybe. but factory condition 4" i give you benefit of the doupt (as Aks are made in quite a few factories.)

though the last comment was 9 months ago the topic was rifle-not assault rifle.... so,how about the enfield? I would have to say, in my opinion, if you state weapon- springfield 1903 kar-98 enfield perhaps then for semi- garand tokarev m-14 gew-43 and m1 carbine fully auto: stg-44 as it was the grandfather of all auto-and to those who disassociate it from the ak-in the early days, do you think the russians came up with that many origional idea...that nut kalasnikov can say he dreamed it up while he was an infant...it is a visual and general copy with some functions different...but it is a copy from a simple mind then you have the: ak-for the reliability, number and age then perhaps the g-3etc and you can go to modern times... but the m-16..? perhaps today.. but not until the latest version- bulpup? hardly styer? mabey there are several new versions of different models,but I prefer the tried and tested and those who had served

I see Shooter was talking out of his rear-end almost a year ago as well. For this sort of question one has to look at what was contemporary to the rifle in question, no? As an Infantry bolt-action rifle, the SMLE was a better bet than a K98 - larger magazine, faster action etc. Semi-automatic, the M1 was the first to be general issue, but it had some nasty design flaws, like not being able to top up or reload without major hassle. I'd be inclined to go Belgian with the FN FAL for that one. Assault rifle. The AK series is designed to work in the face of active neglect by untrained troops, and that would put me off it as a trained infantry rifle. The need for small-arms cleaning enforces discipline, IMHO. The M16 series is good, but with a few modifications it gets better. Not dumping propellant gases on the bolt face would be a good start.

Hands down the Brown Bess. A shabbier rifle could never have carved out an immense intercontinental empire. -HoH

Infantry long-arm, perhaps, but as has been pointed out, the Brown Bess was a musket, i.e. smoothbore and not a rifle.

If you are considering the 7.62 class of weapons the FAL and G3 were not even in the same class as the M14 regarding reliability. They looked good but in real conditions I would choose the 14 every day of the week.

That's interesting. Most sources quote the FN FAL/SLR as being exceedingly reliable. For the M14 to be a 'class above', it would have to out-do the AK47 in that regard.

Nope, the FAL was not. The reason the Israeli's abandoned it after 67 was its lack of reliability. The M14's chief problem was weight. It was utterly reliable.

>>Nope, the FAL was not. The reason the Israeli's abandoned it after 67 was its lack of reliability. The M14's chief problem was weight. It was utterly reliable.<< Reliability issues only in comparison to the AKs carried by their opponents -- a level of reliability an M14 could never match either. The M14's chief problem was that it a decent, but not exemplary, design, and one which was inferior to the FAL from the start. Had members of the US Army arsenal system at the time not engaged in fraud to ensure their design won the competition, the US would have procured the FAL instead of the M14. The relative success of the M14 versus the FAL and the G3 is pretty amply attested to by their relative success in foreign weapons sales. A handful of M14s found their way into pro-western militaries during the Cold War. A couple million FALs and G3s did the same.

I apologize, I thought this was a serious discussion. I will withdraw now.