What is your favorite infantry rifle?

[Mundy]

While I'm now fairly content with what I have, I wouldn't mind a flintlock sometime. I had been looking at the 1795 Springfield here

www.militaryheritage.com/muskets.htm

I've been slowly accumulating kit over the past year. Managed to get a repro belt, cartridge box, etc. I wasn't sure how to rig up the shoulder strap to the cartridge box until I found a photo of an original. I wound up with a kepi for Christmas. I'm debating whether I want to order some insignia for it from RQ or not. I've been considering joining a skirmish group.

www.n-ssa.org

Unfortunately the nearest group is about 100 miles away. Skirmishing is probably easier on the barrel than Reenacting, since the bore gets scrubbed out with each shot.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I'm putting together a reenacting kit, but I wanted to get the musket first because I also have an interest in old weapons. RQ is where I bought mine too, cost me $699 without sling and bayonet. I've been wanting to get a Model 1842, but I'm leaning to a smoothbore just to see what I can do with 'buck and ball' ammo. Hopefully later this year I can get a Model 1842, that is if a Pedersoli flintlock doesn't catch my eye (cough 1795 Springfield cough) [:D]

[IandMe]

I've heard good things about modified AR-15's for jungle fighting and modified shotguns.

The M-14 was also considered a good weapon,but heavy.The original M-16 was hated,but over time grew into a good weapon with experience.

[Twotribes]

M1 Garand. I wouldnt mind an M-14 but never owned one. For in close work the M1 Carbine.

The m16a2 is a superb shooter. Never fired an M4.

From personal experience, I would rather hump a lightweight weapon with a lot of ammo that can hit what you aim at and canhurt or kill them. I dont "hump" anymore so have no need for a lightwieght weapon, the Garand and carbine are good pair, for target shooting and home defense.

I will point out you really dont want to fire to many non jacketed rounds through the garand, it isnt good for the weapon. Just get a carbine for "inside" work. The round is basicly a pistol round. It is semi automatic has 5 round, 10 round, 15 round and 30 round magazines and is FUN to shoot.

I dont like shotguns much but may again buy one. A slug is gonna pass through walls pretty well also though. I would suggest if you go with shotgun, you decide what you want it for, if you want a hunting weapon buy that type, if you want home defense, buy that type, or if you want both buy 2 shotguns, one of each.

Further I would recommend you buy a 12 gauge and if for home defense you have a mix of double 00 and slugs. I would further suggest if you have weapons for "home defense" you should own more than a couple rounds for said weapons.

[.50Kerry]

Rifle?
 
I'd probably have to go with either the AR-180 or the M-39.
 
 

[Smead]

From 1947 onward:

AK-47

General purpose, simple, reliable.

Compromise with 7.62 x39 regarding size of round and ammo weight.

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Smead

From 1947 onward:

AK-47

General purpose, simple, reliable.

Compromise with 7.62 x39 regarding size of round and ammo weight.

The 7.62*39 has arcish ballistics....I wish there were a 6.5 intermediate compromise round of say 6.5*48 ish...ah well maybe soon in the new 6.8 round.

[Smead]

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: Smead

From 1947 onward:

AK-47

General purpose, simple, reliable.

Compromise with 7.62 x39 regarding size of round and ammo weight.

The 7.62*39 has arcish ballistics....I wish there were a 6.5 intermediate compromise round of say 6.5*48 ish...ah well maybe soon in the new 6.8 round.

Really I am thinking about the relatively short ranges that such a weapon is used at in most cases; say 0-150 meteres. Ballistics are forgivable at those ranges.

Ease of use and reliablity, with decent firepower gets my vote.

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Smead


Really I am thinking about the relatively short ranges that such a weapon is used at in most cases; say 0-150 meteres. Ballistics are forgivable at those ranges.

Ease of use and reliablity, with decent firepower gets my vote.

then go with the AK-74 as a 'tweener....

Actually truth be told the Galil and the Valmet are tops amongst the AR as Reliable warhorse gang....

The 7.62*39 just has too varied an arc to allow an average marksman to look "good" the 5.56,5.45, and 6.8 family allow this.

[Smead]

Is your approval of Western weapons suitable for the "General Discussion" forum??
 
 

[Doggie]

Good point, as the Soviet made weapons are more "sincere" than the tools of the Capitalist oppressers.
 
The inventors and manufacturers of revolutionary weaponry such as the AK-47 labored for the good of mankind, seeking only to liberate the working class from the oppression of parasitic western democracies.  Eugene Stoner designed weapons in order to further his pursuit of filthy lucre.  
 
 

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Doggie

Good point, as the Soviet made weapons are more "sincere" than the tools of the Capitalist oppressers.

The inventors and manufacturers of revolutionary weaponry such as the AK-47 labored for the good of mankind, seeking only to liberate the working class from the oppression of parasitic western democracies.  Eugene Stoner designed weapons in order to further his pursuit of filthy lucre.  

If we are going with "weapons and their innate intentions" I think the Nambu 94 must be classed as one of the greatest weapons in the world.

It was a downright pacifistic weapon. More likely almost to kill its user than his target, and capable of blowing off the pride and joy of Nippon with a mere slip in the mud. Hats off to you Kijiro Nambu for being on the leading edge of a massive cultural shift in Japanese thinking.

regards,
sven

[Smead]

Japan only lost WW2 because of US warcrimes.

[Twotribes]

No, we cheated.... just go read some of the Civil War threads and you will quickly realize, for example, that we started cheating even back in the 1860's. I mean HOW DARE we actually use our superior numbers, manufacturing, research and economical base against anyone in a WAR.

I had a fellow Marine in the early 80's tell me point blank that the South won the Civil War. His logic being that since the Union cheated by having used these methods and because the South fought "honorably" they won and the North just "stole" the victory with historical lies.

If you doubt that there are people that think in these terms, go read some of the threads in the Civil War game ( Forge of Freedom) Forum. The designers admitted they made the game "balanced" so that either side could win by force of arms. When people point out there is no "historical" scenario with the correct economies, troop strengths, manpower levels, navies, ect ect. Posters respond with comments like " well I dont want an historical game, I want to be able to take what each side had and play what if" totally ignoring the previous statements that the South has been given so many advantages as to make that impossible without serious modification to the provided scenarios.

Further, the designers have decided to add an "historical" Scenario and there are still people insisting that this is a "waste" of time. Just as in here where a cadre of posters routinely try to silence one side while getting in their digs, there is a cadre in most of the game forums doing the same.

It would appear to be Human Nature at work.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

No, we cheated.... just go read some of the Civil War threads and you will quickly realize, for example, that we started cheating even back in the 1860's. I mean HOW DARE we actually use our superior numbers, manufacturing, research and economical base against anyone in a WAR.

I had a fellow Marine in the early 80's tell me point blank that the South won the Civil War. His logic being that since the Union cheated by having used these methods and because the South fought "honorably" they won and the North just "stole" the victory with historical lies.

If you doubt that there are people that think in these terms, go read some of the threads in the Civil War game ( Forge of Freedom) Forum. The designers admitted they made the game "balanced" so that either side could win by force of arms. When people point out there is no "historical" scenario with the correct economies, troop strengths, manpower levels, navies, ect ect. Posters respond with comments like " well I dont want an historical game, I want to be able to take what each side had and play what if" totally ignoring the previous statements that the South has been given so many advantages as to make that impossible without serious modification to the provided scenarios.

Further, the designers have decided to add an "historical" Scenario and there are still people insisting that this is a "waste" of time. Just as in here where a cadre of posters routinely try to silence one side while getting in their digs, there is a cadre in most of the game forums doing the same.

It would appear to be Human Nature at work.

Why limit US "cheating" to the 1860s? Remember, in the 1770s, all good soldiers fought standing in line, blazing away volley after volley with their Brown Besses and Charlevilles. But those damnable Continentals, they wouldn't fight completely like regulars.

Proof that the Brits musta won, because George Washington did lose more battles than he won, when he chose to line his men up and fight muzzle to muzzle. It was a British win, but us stoopid rebels, having to cheat to win a war.

Don't even get me started on the Battle of New Orleans [:D]

[Doggie]

I see .50Kerry has read the same article I just read about the Nambu pistol in World War II magazine.[;)]

[morvwilson]

While I am not real fond of the 7.62x39 round, I do like the Russian designs. I own a Mosin Nagant model 1892 and an SKS. Both weapons are very easy to operate and clean. It appears to me that the designers had the soldiers in mind when they designed such sturdy weapons.
Of those two, I prefer the Mosin Nagant. Can't get the rate of fire out of it like you can a Lee Enfield or Mauser but it is just as accurate.
In the end, when I shoot the Mosin Nagant, I do not spend nearly as much on ammo as I do with the SKS.

[bradfordkay]

" Don't even get me started on the Battle of New Orleans "

Yeah, using alligators as cannon has to be beyond the rules of warfare...

[morvwilson]

And they broke into song!
 
In 1814 we took a little trip
along with Col. Jackson down the mighty misisip
We took a little bacon
and took a little beans
and we whooped the bloody british
in the town of New Orleans
 
We fired our guns and the british kepa comin
There wasn't nigh as many as the was a while ago
We fired once more and they commenced to runnin
Along the misisipi to the gulf of mexico
 
We fired our cannon until the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alagator and we fought another round
We filled his head with cannon balls and powdered his behind
When we touched the powder off
The gator lost his mind![:)][:)]
 
I remember listening to that song in the car with my father when is was 5 or 6 years old

[tc237]

Cotton Balers by God!

[morvwilson]

They stepped so high
and they made the bugles ring
we stood beside our cotton bails
and didn't say a thing
 
we fired our guns and the british kepa commin
there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
we fired once more and they commenced to runnin
on down the missisip to the gulf of mexico![:D][:D]