What criteria for a general purpose fighting rifle?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, without limiting ourselves by naming a specific rifle or listing criteria with a specific rifle in mind - what is it you need from a general purpose fighting rifle?

If you were going to fight other human beings with a rifle - and you could only have one rifle, one barrel length, one configuration - what would you want criteria-wise for that rifle?

Weight? Optics? Magazine Capacity? What objective standard would you use to measure reliability and accuracy?

[overkill556x45]

Needs to be short (under 40", arbitrarily), light (preferably under 10lbs with all the Gucci gear), ergonomic. Should carry no less than 20rds (he who reloads less wins), preferably intermediate cartridge. I love the .308 and '06 too, I just prefer intermediates for up close stuff (200yds or less).
Optics should be parallax free, low magnification or no magnification. Allow for both eyes open firing.

[Creeper]

Kinda depends on the scenario don't it? A general purpose urban or CQC rifle might be a bit different than a general purpose battlefield rifle.

Caliber might be dependant on ease of resupply... so might mag capacity. .223 - .308... number of rounds for a given weight load bla bla bla.

Length of time for threat or conflict would also have a bearing. Gun weight and ammo weight can mean the difference between being physically alert and prepaired... or worn down and exhausted.

With no specifics, I'd lean towards a semi-auto .308, 20 rd mag rifle with a low or no power QD ACOG and original iron sights for back-up. A FAL, a H&K91, a Galil, a Valmet... even a M14 would be fine and dandy.
If you told me I'd be humping for days with no resupply... a .223 might be a better option.

C

[King Ghidora]

For my area the choice is fairly clear. There are very few places where a long range rifle would make a difference in a soldier vs. solider confrontation. A carbine is the clear choice. Full auto or burst would be a good options but I'll avoid any options that aren't currently available to me.

Semi-auto is the preferred choice since WWII and the Garrand proved it was superior to bolt guns in everything except accuracy and it's close in that regard. I would prefer something I could carry all day without developing fatigue so bad I couldn't aim it and shoot it. Medium size rounds would be best IMO but smaller sizes could be good too. I would prefer something that would penetrate a tree and take out anyone hiding behind it. I'd prefer something smaller than a .308 because of recoil. It's much easier to pick out your next target with a smaller round. I would suggest anything from a .223 to a 30.30 with my preference being to the higher end. A 7.62 X 39 would be an excellent choice.

Removable mags would be mandatory. I'd like the option of mag sizes from 5 up to 30 or 40. A 5 round mag comes closer to giving you the ability to hide behind an object and shoot over it without worrying about your mag forcing you to raise your gun (and your head with it) to the point that you're a target.

Accuracy needs to be decent to 200 yards but more firepower would trump having the better accuracy of a bolt gun etc.. Guns exist that give you both of course. I would want one of those.

The gun should be well balanced making it easy to line up on a target and fire in a hurry. Above all the gun must be reliable. Jammed guns make for dead soldiers.

I know this exercise isn't meant to point to an existing gun but there are guns that approach these criteria in existence now. The venerable AK-47 is close to being the ideal. But IMO it isn't quite as accurate as everybody's whipping boy, the SKS. I think it's an extremely well designed gun for battle except of course for not being full auto. But IMO that's not as important as other factors.

I'm certainly not saying it couldn't be improved. It sure could. But the SKS is my SHTF gun for many of these reasons. I'm not one to sit around all day dreaming up elaborate scenarios where the SHTF. But it could happen. And if it does I'm going to be glad I have my SKS and a large amount of ammo to sustain it until I can get resupplied.

It's cheap to buy and supply, it's reliable, it's fairly accurate (could be improved here), I have a variety of mags that work well with it from 5 round versions to 30 round versions that actually hold 38, it's big enough to do the job but not so big that you have to search for your targets on the second shot, it's VERY well balanced, there
s a lot of ammo around for them stored in people's basements and attics, I could carry it quite a while without it being a problem, it has a high rate of fire, and it will penetrate a good sized tree. It has a lot going for it IMO.

Of course there are situations where it fails completely in solving a problem. That's why I keep other guns around. Well mainly I just like guns and shooting but I try to buy my guns to fill specific needs. Right now I think I have a gun for just about every situation IMO. Of course there will always be options I can't cover and options I could cover much better. But I've been through a lot of guns finding the ones I like to fill certain roles. I can certainly improve but I am not in any rush at this point. I have shotguns, handguns, a carbine, a fairly long range gun, and stealth guns (.22's can be fired without attracting attention if you do it right - I sure wish I had some Federal CB's left over from the old days but I don't - at least I think it was Federal - they've been gone a long time now - at any rate think balloons tied on your barrel - makes a fantastic silencer not that I would do that except in an emergency situation - and they can be quite lethal if you hit what you're shooting at).

I'm not a nut case planning for the Russians to invade or anything. I'm just a guy who likes to buy guns and shoot them. But I do like to cover my bases too.

[Jimro]

A general purpose fighting rifle?

Isn't that an oxymoron? Kinda like "general practitioner brain surgeon"?

A few years back a Palestinian with a Mauser killed five Israeli soldiers armed with m16's. Guess the superiority of autoloaders over bolt action rifles just wasn't the deciding factor in that engagement.

Forget the tools, become the weapon. The only thing that makes any weapon dangerous is the person holding it. An AR-15 of AK will not make you a superior warrior. Being a superior warrior will make you deadly with the tools of your trade.

Jimro

[Smaug]

For an urban rifle, something like a Beretta PX4 would be perfect for me.

For something beyond urban ranges, I'm fine with a box-stock M16A2. Add a laser maybe, but that's it.

[Ignition Override]

King G. (among others): I like your style.

Those other comments about the Mauser versus Israeli M-16s are interesting.
Maybe the guy with the Mauser was hiding behind much better cover, or ambushed those guys with no hint that he was in the area?

[stubbicatt]

Those other comments about the Mauser versus Israeli M-16s is interesting.
Maybe the guy with the Mauser was hiding behind much better cover, or ambushed those guys with no hint that he was in the area?

Five Times???!!! Maybe for the first shot it was surprise with no hint he was in the area, but after that, it was something else, dont' you think?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Kinda depends on the scenario don't it?

The scenario is anything you can imagine. Whether you need to make a precision shot at 500m or clear rooms at 3m, this is the rifle you have to do both jobs with.

That is the whole point of this exercise. I would like people to think about what it is they really want in that type of rifle, keeping in mind the compromises you have to make in that type of situation, and decide what criteria are must haves.

[Moloch]

1.) Reliability There is nothing more important than reliability, if the firearm jams during a battle chances are high that you will be killed by none-jamming weapons from your enemy. It must withstand dirt, water and sand in the action, it must withstand throwing it at hard surfaces etc.
The finish of the weapon must withstand rust. (Phosphatized etc.)

2.) Power: The cartridge the rifle shoots must STOP an enemy with a well placed shot in the chest at 100yds with a none-expanding FMJ bullet. No 3 round burst, no full auto. A single well aimed hit to the chest. IMO a combat rifle should not be less powerful than a 7.62x39.

3.) RPM. Depends on the shooter, I dont prefer any action as long as I can shoot the firearm fast enough. Semi-auto is a very good choice, but If I can operate a bolt action gun half as fast as the semi auto shoots its ok too. Forget spray and pray, every shot counts and must hit your enemy.

5) Accuracy: Depends on the situation, but if the rifle is able to hit a 4x4 inch target with a hot barrel at 100yds it should be ok. For everything over 100yds give me a scoped scout-rifle. The rifled must have mechanical sights with front sight protection.

6.) Weight: If you carry a too heavy rifle all day long you accuracy my suffer because you arms will be tired. 8lbs is comfortable, everything over 10lbs is bad. (for me)

7.) Portability. In close quarter combat you may have problems to keep the weapon aimed when moving through doors or around corners if its too long.
I prefer rifles with overall length of about 36'' without a folding stock.

8.) Hand to Hand combat. If you have no ammo left and the rifle is all you have it must serve as a blunt weapon for hand to hand combat. A bayonet would be the best choice, at least a steel butt plate or a massive butt stock.
A folding plastic stock is next to useless in this case.

9.) Ammunition readily available. Which means either .308, 7.62x39. (.223 not listed as its IMO underpowered for a CR)

[Alleykat]

what is it you need from a general purpose fighting rifle?


I own and enjoy shooting a Bushmaster Shorty; however, to answer your question, I don't need anything from a "general purpose fighting rifle," because I'm not going to be generally, purposely fighting with a rifle. The chances of my having my AR "handy", if I ever need a weapon with which to fight are somewhere between infinitesimal and zero, but a lot closer to zero. :cool:

[Moloch]

Dont laugh at me, but I would carry my pump action shotgun into the ''battlefield''.
There is nothing that beats it in close quarter combat, but I can also load slugs to hit at target at 75 yards which is pretty far for modern ''fighting''.
I dont think we have to talk about the power of #00 buckshot and a 1 ounce slug, ammo capacity is not bad too.
There is a whole lot of pump actions shotguns which are well under 35'' overall length, and pump action is very reliable. Ammo availability of the 12 gauge is impressive to say at least.

A shotgun makes a pretty good fighting long arm as it covers most if not all points of a fighting rifle. :)

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't need anything from a "general purpose fighting rifle," because I'm not going to be generally, purposely fighting with a rifle.

Well thanks for taking the time to post and tell me that you aren't interested in the topic I started. If only more people would do that instead of the traditional method of just ignoring topics they had no interest in...

Back to the original topic - what are the objective criteria? I think we all agree that a rifle needs to be reliable but how are we going to measure whether it is reliable enough for our needs? Mean rounds between stoppage? Mean rounds between failure? What course of fire will we use to test reliability?

Likewise with stopping power - I am sure we would all like the one shot death ray; but it just doesn't exist. In the book Blackhawk Down one of the men on an M60 talks about giving someone a burst of 7.62x51 multiple times and the fella kept on a comin'.

So how are we going to objectively test the terminal performance of our round? Goats? Gel? What are the standards we are looking for?

What typw of objectively measurable performance do we expect from a rifle that might be called on to serve any role you can imagine?

[SR420]

Sound suppressible 16 - 18 inch barreled 7.62 x 39 and 7.62 x 51 auto loaders with collapsible stocks make my short list.

[Alleykat]

Well thanks for taking the time to post and tell me that you aren't interested in the topic I started. If only more people would do that instead of the traditional method of just ignoring topics they had no interest in...

I didn't say, of course, that I had no interest in this thread. I find threads like this amusing, and, there's nothing wrong with my being amused, is there? ;) It's just that I personally can't envision my ever needing a "fighting rifle", nor, I suspect, would your ever need a "fighting rifle," but this type of probably-not-going-to-happen-in-the-real-world speculation can be fun. :)

The magical thinking of Rambolistas is one of my greatest sources of amusement.:D

[azredhawk44]

I'd want to have no problem shooting through cinder block walls and turning cover into concealment.

I'd want to be able to disable vehicles with the rifle. Maybe not on the first shot, but I don't want to take a whole magazine to do it either.

I'd only be able to see targets at 600 yards on major thoroughfares, like arterial streets, but I would want to engage as far as I possibly could.

I'd want a sighting system that is useful for the daytime or night time.

[King Ghidora]

It's just that I personally can't envision my ever needing a "fighting rifle", nor, I suspect, would your ever need a "fighting rifle," but this type of probably-not-going-to-happen-in-the-real-world speculation can be fun.

I'm not about to say it's likely but the odds you listed earlier aren't very accurate IMO. Did you catch the Rodney King riots? Lots of shop owners defended their property with the same SKS that I own. How about Katrina? Do you know about how things went there before there was any actual law enforcement back on the scene? We had a situation here that could easily have turned into a similar problem. We had an ice storm that blocked every road for miles in any direction. Phone lines and power lines were down. Even the radio and tv towers were down. Looters could have had a field day if they wanted to carry their booty out with them. We could have been at their mercy without the power to protect ourselves. And it isn't the stuff I worry about going with them. It's the rapes and murders that would worry me and they did happen in New Orleans.

There are many, many scenarios where we could find ourselves facing the world alone. Here in the USA we have things so easy we tend to think nothing bad will ever happen. Most of the world doesn't have that sense of security. We shouldn't feel as secure as we do IMO. Things can and do happen.

I'll give you a scenario that I can almost guarantee would result in things going wrong. Remember the Rodney King riots spread to other cities and in Cincinnati just a few years ago there were race riots too. If Obama gets elected and the economy fails completely (think Great Depression II) then some bubba decides to blame Obama and takes him out with a well placed shot from 800 yards away then I would bet my bottom dollar there would be big trouble in this country. I hate the idea of it but I believe it's true. Before you call me a racist remember that I put blame on the bubba for starting the trouble. Racial tension lurks just under the surface in this country. I've seen it bubble up many times from Wounded Knee to Attica to south central LA to Cincinnati. I'm part native American myself so I wouldn't exactly fall into the category of a neo-Nazi or MS13 or the Black Panthers. Remember too that the Latinos think they still own the southwest. They've tried to take it back more than once.

Then there's the drug gangs. And where I live there's the mobile meth labs and the remote pot fields to worry about because both can be guarded by gangs.

I'm not saying anyone should stay up nights worrying about such things. But to think that it's almost impossible is very naive IMO. BTW you do remember the Civil War don't you? You think such things can't happen again? Some states are already trying to get out of the United States. Some cities openly flaunt US law and refuse to obey it. We could be much closer to a civil war than you seem to think.

Never say never my friend. If history has taught us anything it's that nothing man builds lasts forever. The one thing that probably is most responsible for making sure we are safe from many of these things is that lots of folks like us do keep weapons on hand and ready to rock. We haven't even talked about a huge terrorist attack. I know ways they could wipe out the entire eastern seaboard easily. A 747 crashed into a uranium enrichment plant like the one at Piketon, Ohio could send a Chernobyl type cloud of radiation across the mountains and make everything from Washington to Boston a ghost town. In fact the cloud could be 1,000 times bigger than the Chernobyl cloud because that was one nuclear power plant and Piketon is the place they create the fuel for many of the nuclear power plants in the world (outside of Russia of course). Imagine the chaos. Then there's the EMP threat. Explode one nuke 100 miles above Kansas and every computer and electrical device in the USA gets fried. No more cars, no more water, no more fuel, no more anything except what we had in 1850. Check out the Wikipedia article on this web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse). Yes that's Wikipedia but the information isn't limited to that page. Check out the map that was used by someone testifying before Congress on this issue. It's on that Wikipedia page.

Things can and do and eventually will go wrong.

[jsmaye]

Quote:
Well thanks for taking the time to post and tell me that you aren't interested in the topic I started. If only more people would do that instead of the traditional method of just ignoring topics they had no interest in...
I didn't say, of course, that I had no interest in this thread. I find threads like this amusing, and, there's nothing wrong with my being amused, is there? It's just that I personally can't envision my ever needing a "fighting rifle", nor, I suspect, would your ever need a "fighting rifle," but this type of probably-not-going-to-happen-in-the-real-world speculation can be fun.

The magical thinking of Rambolistas is one of my greatest sources of amusement.

Does any one else find the initial topic creepy and macabre?

[azredhawk44]

Does any one else find the initial topic creepy and macabre?

Yeah, but self-governance is also creepy and awe-inspiring.

Kinda goes hand in hand.

[publius]

Lightweight, .223, 30 round capability, easy to scope & unscope in the field.

[Evil Monkey]

Whatever fulfills the original role of the small caliber assault rifle.

Controllable burst fire

HUGE magazine capacity

good optical site

Matter of fact, here's a better description.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJM8asnj6JY

Personally, I think it also must have a bolt catch, use a STANAG style straight locking magazine, bullpup for longer barrel in small package, forward ejection, made with materials to keep the empty rifle and mag weight at under 10 pounds.

Maybe the rifle should use telescopic 5.56mm like the ones used in the LSAT LMG to keep the ammo weight as low as possible. The magazine capacity should be NO LESS THAN 50 ROUNDS. Must have a very good muzzle break, the barrel should features materials that reduce heat build up.............and has a 40mm HK AG36 grenade launcher attached to it. :D

If possible, maybe it should also have a 3-5 round burst similar to the G11 but I'm not really looking for any more complexity in a forward ejecting bullpup that may be utilizing an alternate feeding operation because of the telescopic round.

None the less, the rifle should be able to dump massive amounts of ammo up to around 300-400 meters ACCURATELY. This is not a spray and pray rifle, this is a rifle meant to put a line of rounds down range to increase hit percentages, and to deliver a small cluster of rounds to the target for major trauma should multiple rounds connect.

The GL is to knock out hard barriers that would otherwise be a waste of rifle ammo to punch through. And of course, to reach a target that is otherwise unreachable with the direct fire capability of the rifle.


My logic behind this setup is it's bad enough that you're fighting for your life, for whatever reason, and even if you are intelligent in the field of combat and can get yourself(s) out of a deadly situation with minimal injury, it would make life alot easier if your weapon was built specifically to be user friendly in trying to destroy the enemy as easily as possible.

[King Ghidora]

Does any one else find the initial topic creepy and macabre?

The only thing Chairman Mao got right was when he said power comes from the barrel of a gun. None of us want to shoot other people but we don't want to just give up and die if they're shooting at us.

Guns have guaranteed our freedom since day one. Without them we might as well sign up with bin Laden because someone will take our freedom from us if we ever give up those guns. That's been true since the beginning of time. It will be true until the end of this age. It's sad but true.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, speaking just for myself:

The rifle has to be handy and fairly light. If it isn't, people won't carry it or keep it nearby and it won't be available when needed. Even in active combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, people still carry the rifle a lot more than they fight with it. Objectively, I would want it at less than eight pounds and 36" with stock extended (this includes a loaded mag, any rails, and irons).

Semi-automatic operation - after all it is 100yr old technology; at this point it can be every bit as reliable as even older, slower technologies.

Reliability: I would like to see a mean rounds between stoppage of greater than 4k rounds and a mean rounds between failure of greater than 10k threshhold, or 15k objective.

Stock that is both folding and adjustable: If this rifle is going to do everything then it needs to be as compact as possible. A folding stock gives a viable weapon to a driver or someone else in a tight area. An adjustable stock means it can fit a wide variety of people/gear.

Since I need the rifle to be small and compact, I want an intermediate caliber. I don't really want to limit myself by naming a specific caliber; but the work being done with the many 6mm alternatives seems promising. It should be optimized for the ranges where most conflict happens (<100yds); but should still retain some ability out to 500yds.

A monolithic 1913 rail along the top and rails on the handguards. If you need to mount accessories (PEQ-2, PAQ-4, optics, bipods, grips, etc.), rails make that much easier. Better sling mounting options and just more options in general.

Accuracy - realistically a 4MOA standard is more than sufficient to get the job done both historically and practically. On other other hand, the danger in using an intermediate 4MOA caliber rifle to shoot at somebody over 300yds away is that they might shoot back with a real rifle or something with a little more pop. In that circumstance, less than 2MOA is much more desirable since it let's you make effective first round hits at those distances under less than ideal range conditions.

Anyway, that is just a few thoughts for now... whether they amuse or inform ;)

[.351winchester]

Criteria? Not sure the order of priorities, but for one only, living room distance to 500 yard fighting rifle, well the usual reliability factor including being low maintenance, commonality of design (cheap, easy to find parts, mags, something someone could fix if I couldn't, simplicity of action and low moving parts count and lack of over complex systems might fit here), Durability-something tough. Portability, weight and length. Common cartridge- a 6.5 might be ideal but can you find it in any old store, plus the cost issue. Modularity of platform- one AR lower can give you anything from a .22 to a BMG in unlimited configuration. But more to the point of one setup, Aiming: the optics would ideally cover all practical ranges at one time be that irons or 3 grand worth of high tech devices.

I think The M1A Scout Squad with a 1-6x IER scope could cover a lot of ground if you only had one rifle.

[Ignition Override]

True Stubbi-

I'm kind of new at all of this. Just wondered whether the Israelis were caught on flat, open ground.

[StuntManMike]

1) reliability
2) rugged
3) 2 MOA or better accuracy
4) completely user servicable
5) capable of accepting both military and commercial ammo
6) uses common mags
7) light as possible without compromising toughness.

These are listed in the order that I thought of them, not in order of priority. If they were listed in order of priority, they would all be number 1.

[King Ghidora]

I'm kind of new at all of this. Just wondered whether the Israelis were caught on flat, open ground.

It's no secret that a well trained soldier can defeat several not so well trained soldiers even if they are better armed. I just don't think most of us would choose a bolt gun over a semi-auto given an equal amount of expertise with both guns. It's easy enough to do well with a bolt gun firing multiple times. It's easier to do it with a semi-auto if you're trained as well and as talented using either. People using cap and ball could sometimes do better than someone with a repeater but for the most part they couldn't.

[Jimro]

Hollywood has given rise to the myth that one man properly armed can take on an army.

The better myth would be that one man properly trained can take on an army of poorly trained conscripts.

It is the warrior, not the tools.

Jimro

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is the warrior, not the tools.

You know, I am a big fan of training and I definitely agree that training and mindset is far more important than the particular weapon you choose to use. Having said that, I'd appreciate it if people who would prefer to discuss training and mindset would start their own thread instead of hijacking this one. Thanks.

A couple of updates to the previous thoughts:

Folding stock isn't a must have - an unconventional design like a bullpup could produce a very compact weapon that was still effective in this area.

While irons are a must, it seems clear that the primary sight will be an optic of some sort. Ideally something like the Short Dot or the Trijicon Accupoint with crosshair reticle. Maybe a slightly updated reticle that would make targeting faster a la the ACOG.

Ambidextrous operation would be a must - a reversible charging handle would be nice too.

[jsmaye]

The only thing Chairman Mao got right was when he said power comes from the barrel of a gun. None of us want to shoot other people but we don't want to just give up and die if they're shooting at us.

Guns have guaranteed our freedom since day one. Without them we might as well sign up with bin Laden because someone will take our freedom from us if we ever give up those guns. That's been true since the beginning of time. It will be true until the end of this age. It's sad but true.

My original question about whether this was a creepy post had nothing to do with right to bear/right to carry/right to defend. Nor did it have to do with the understood primary purpose of a handgun. Asking "if you had to kill a person what would you choose as the firearm" just came across as a little blood-thirsty.

[King Ghidora]

I know a few stories about soldiers who took on a large number of enemy soldiers and some even lived to tell the tale. I know a MOH winner who pulled a Forrest Gump type rescue of several soldiers taking on a large number of Chinese soldiers in the process. Sometimes it's just extreme motivation that makes the difference. But going up against poorly trained soldiers definitley improves the odds. I could cite examples like Audie Murphy and Sgt. York too. York proved that a bolt gun could accomplish a heck of a lot. Murphy proved a guy with a radio and friends in the rear with artillery could be incredibly effective. He used a 50 cal. machine gun pretty effectively too killing 50 German soldiers with it.

Training is no doubt important but that isn't what the thread is about. I'm just trying to point out that various types of weapons can be used quite effectively in holding off enemy soldiers. A talented sniper can use a bolt gun extremely effectively too as demonstrated by the Russian's in places like Stalingrad using a sniper version of the Mosin-Nagant.

Narrowing down a single rifle to choose would be tough really. The Soviets in WWII used designated sharpshooters in their squads pretty much the way we do now. They even used a lot of women in that role. Cover and concealment can be a great ally when fighting soldiers. That's why I think a single battle rifle should include some long range accuracy. The rifle I mentioned earlier, the SKS, isn't known for being terribly accurate at long range but it isn't terrible either. At 100 yards I could hit a soldier consistently but at 300 yards my accuracy would be more a matter of luck than skill. I could get close but probably just close enough to let the enemy know I was there.

So many choices. So many factors. Again I like having a weapon for every occasion. Too bad I can't carry them all at once.

[JohnKSa]

At one time I gave this a LOT of thought...

Here's my list with some updates.

Basic .260 remington or equivalent caliber
At least 18" barrel
Barrel twist calibrated for 140 gr bullets
8lbs without optic & cleaning kit
Stainless parts where feasible
Melonite on all non stainless parts
Chrome lined bore and chamber
Semi-auto only
Flash Hider
Bore axis should align with the stock to keep muzzle rise to a minumum.
Front locking rotating bolt that locks to barrel.Loading Detachable box magazines 20 rounds or more capacity
Mag release accessible to shooting hand
Straight insertion mag--no rocking motion
Bottom feed, Side eject
Op handle must act on the bolt in both open and close directions.
Bolt hold open on empty mag
Bolt release accessible to shooting handAction Adjustable (or two position) Short Stroke Gas Piston system
Gas piston diameter = bore diameter to allow cleaning with bore brush.
Straight gas tube accessible from both ends when disassembled to allow easy cleaning.Miscellaneous Cleaning kit storage on rifle.
Field strip to 8 or less parts/assemblies without tools.
Possible to disassemble further than field strip (to the level required for likely/reasonable parts replacement) with no tools or only tools stored in rifle.
Sling provisions
Bipod provision (not necessarily integral but easy attach.)
Quick attach/detach scope capability with zero retained. A rail would suffice. This provision should minimize the height of the optic above the bore.
Accessory Rail (with cover for when not in use)Stocks Black Synthetic
"Wrinkle" texture
Pistol grip easily detachable/replaceable with a variety of sizes to fit individuals.
Vented front handguard with metal inserts.Sights and Accuracy Better than 2.5" 5 shot groups with issue ammo and sights at 100 yards.
Sight radius of at least 24"
Rear click adjustable peep with elevation clicks marked with range and windage clicks marked in MOA.
Rear sight adjustment must have quick lock/unlock feature to prevent accidental clicking. (Perhaps only adjustable when knob is pulled out against spring force)
Front post sight adjustable for elevation and windage with VERY secure adjustments.Trigger and Safety Two stage trigger
4-6lb pull weight
Passive Firing pin safety to prevent slam-fires
Passive Out of battery safety
Hammer blocking manual safety easily releasable by shooting hand. May require non-shooting hand to engage.As far as reliability & durability goes, I think that it would be reasonable to expect that the rifle would pass the current acceptance tests in use by the major militaries of the world.

[Driveout02]

I was thinking about this exact topic at work the other day, and it dawned on me that one gun does not fit all. I thought of my wife and unborn son (let's pretend he's a eleven-year-old). What weapon would fit each of our strengths/weaknesses?

All the firearms y'all are suggesting might work great for me, but what about for a smaller woman, or a child? In a SHTF situation, I wouldn't want to leave my family unarmed. Am I wrong to assume the OP was imagining a medium build/weight/frame man in this SHTF situation? Because I have a feeling my imaginary 11 year old boy couldn't fire an AR15 as well as I could...

[wogpotter]

You say "Battle Rifle" O.K. that's what I'll respond to.
This by itself rules out anything other than a full-sized, large caliber weapon right there.

Dependability is #1.

Reliability is #2.

Ease of use in dark, wet or other adverse conditions is #3.

Full-power caliber is #4. This is based on the "Battle Rifle" definition, long range & keeping the other guy out there is the function of a battle rifle.

Readily available ammunition is #5.

MOA (Minute of Adversary) accuracy #6. You won't be checking for "X-ring accuracy" in a battle, you just need to hit the bad guy, and as far away as possible.

Rugged sights, to me iron sights, is #7. Optics of any kind are more fragile & prone to problems. If in doubt take your toughest optic into the shower, run cold water on it for 5 minutes & try to look thru it.

Battery-free operation as well, no lights, lasers, or other "goodies" that'll need to be replaced unpredictably.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Nor did it have to do with the understood primary purpose of a handgun.

From my point of view, both a handgun and a rifle have the same purpose - defending yourself and your loved ones. The rifle is more effective. The handgun is more convenient. Frankly, it puzzles me that both you and Alleykat seem comfortable with discussing handguns for fighting people; but find the topic of wanting a more effective firearm too creepy or rambo-ish for your tastes. Or maybe I am misunderstanding something?

At one time I gave this a LOT of thought...

Your list certainly reflects that :D I can't find much on there that I wouldn't be pretty happy with to be honest. I've started to like single stage triggers more because they are easier to do multiple shots with close in and don't negatively affect my longer range shooting that bad; but that is really more of a tomato-tomahto thing.

Am I wrong to assume the OP was imagining a medium build/weight/frame man in this SHTF situation?

Actually I was imagining the poster selecting the perfect rifle for their own use, whether they be man, woman or child. I was thinking that in many of the threads I saw, people would mention the use of various guns from their collection (this one for up close, this one for driving, this one for hunting, this one for long-range, this one for intermediate range) like they were going to have a train of bearers and a caddy to give advice (I really like the AK47 for this shot. It is just a short chip shot across the street and the 7.62x39 will help with cover). I was interested in what kind of compromises people would make if they had to put everything they needed into a single rifle and get really good with that rifle.

You make an excellent point though that the type of compromises that a 6'2" 200lb man in decent physical shape may not be the same type of compromise that an elderly arthritic woman would make.

You say "Battle Rifle" O.K. that's what I'll respond to.

Actually, I don't recall saying "Battle Rifle" in the original post or any subsequent posts. In fact, I think there are a lot of downsides to a full-sized, large caliber weapon that might make it less than optimal for this role. Reduced ammo capacity, more weight, longer action...

One of the nice things about intermediate caliber weapons is that they are optimized for the ranges where most fighting occurs. You don't have to deal with the extra recoil, muzzle blast and backstop concerns of a full-powered round 90% of the time just to have the additional capability it brings for the other 10% of the time when the intermediate round is stretching the boundaries.

But I am more concerned about your criteria - you've mentioned the traits you want; but you haven't said much to me about how you would objectively measure those traits. That is the other part I was interested in hearing about.

[King Ghidora]

One of the nice things about intermediate caliber weapons is that they are optimized for the ranges where most fighting occurs. You don't have to deal with the extra recoil, muzzle blast and backstop concerns of a full-powered round 90% of the time just to have the additional capability it brings for the other 10% of the time when the intermediate round is stretching the boundaries.

That's pretty much why I chose an intermediate round for my one choice rifle. But it is true that a well conditioned and trained soldier can still do in close fighting with a large caliber rifle. US soldiers certainly did it in WWII. Still not many of us would be in the physical condition those guys were when they went into battle. I wouldn't want to shoot a Garrand 50 times in a close up battle. I'd much prefer a 7.62 X 39.

[Socrates]

Back to the original topic - what are the objective criteria? I think we all agree that a rifle needs to be reliable...

So how are we going to objectively test the terminal performance of our round? Goats? Gel? What are the standards we are looking for? BEEN DONE, IN TWO WORLD WARS, WITH OVER 60 MILLION DEAD.

What typw of objectively measurable performance do we expect from a rifle that might be called on to serve any role you can imagine?

Been two world wars. You really think us armchair guys are going to design a MUCH better weapon?

I'll go with any of the following, in carbine versions:
M1A, Garand, 1903 Springfield, Mosin Nagant 44, Mauser 98, 8mm, any of the swiss 6.5 and 7.5 rifles. I'm not REAL big on high capacity mags, because prone position, they tend to be hard to conceal, and, shoot without exposing your position.

Depending on location, I want what ever everyone else has, so I can pry their ammo away from their dying hands...

Actually, the more I get into it, the more I lOVE, and have to stop myself from buying EVERY battle rifle ever made.

[Jeff_NH]

The best answer to this is whatever semi-automatic rifle that you can buy between now and early next year. It is very unlikely that unless what you really had in mind was a bolt action 22 that there will any other choices available soon after January.

[NWPilgrim]

Well I could answer based on best for me personally, or best for me as head of a family needing to take into considerations of smaller individuals. It could be based on the best under current conditions of availability, or as the theoretical ideal regardless of current practicality. Hmmmm.

Just for grins, I'll play along, in case the credit market collapses anyway...:barf:

For me personally (6'0" 220#), and practical under today's availability, I would prefer something like the M1A SOCOM 18" with a 4x scope. For in-house defense I would rely more on a pistol, and use the rifle for outdoors, against vehicles, etc. It would not be the ideal for all situations, but anything past 20 yds it would be pretty darn good, especially for turning "cover" into concealment.

But like other posters have mentioned, fighting is more about the fighter then the weapon. You adapt your tactics to fit the situation and what you have available. I would be fine with an AK or AR15, but would probably go with my M1 if a SOCOM was not available. You could adapt to even having a .30-30 or a SMLE, you just don;t have as many options.

[Jimro]

Having said that, I'd appreciate it if people who would prefer to discuss training and mindset would start their own thread instead of hijacking this one. Thanks.

In the last hundred years we've seen "general purpose" include the following.

Trench warfare. Open warfare. Urban warfare. Guerilla warfare. Limited war. Total war. Genocide. Ethnic cleansing.

Infantry alone. Infantry supported by indirect. Infantry supported by indirect and armor. Infantry supported by indirect, armor, and aviation.

Machine guns in the offense. Machine guns in the defense.

Infantry attacking prepared positions. Defending from prepared positions. Resupply by a first world logistic systems. Resupply by donkey. No resupply.

Enemy on foot. Enemy on horses. Enemy in light skinned vehicles. Enemy in armored vehicles.

Altitudes ranging from 400 feet below sea level to above 18,000 feet. Temperatures from -40 F to 140 F. Humidity from 5% to 100%.

Airborne operations. Air Mobile operations. Scuba insertion. Establishing a beachhead.

When you take those factors into account you would want a rifle that is: capable of being employed from ranged of 0 to 800 meters against a human target, doesn't get hung up during parachute ops or MOUT, can kill a horse, has ammunition light enough to carry multiple basic loads, doesn't rust/corrode, doesn't require much cleaning, is light enough to carry up and down mountainous terrain without undue strain on the soldier, is strong enough to use as a bludgeoning weapon for butt strokes and bayonet thrust/slash, has a rate of fire fast enough to act as a suppressive weapon, and is easily fixed in the field with a minimum of tools and parts.

So you won't find a "general purpose" rifle out there that fits that bill. That is why having the correct mix of weapons in the unit makes for effective fighting. Door kickers with m4's aren't SDM's with accurized A2's or M14's. SDM's aren't snipers with M24s, m110's, or m107's. Snipers aren't used for support by fire like the weapons squad with their m240b machine guns plussed up by Automatic Riflemen with m249s.

The Soviets and Israeli's use a similar mix.

So maybe I'm not hijacking your thread. Then again, this is the internet where everybody is an expert, so what do I know?

Jimro

[King Ghidora]

I'm not REAL big on high capacity mags, because prone position, they tend to be hard to conceal, and, shoot without exposing your position.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with this. That's why I like to have a variety of mag sizes from 5 rounds to 30 or more rounds. For my SKS I have 10, 15, 20 and 30 round mags. I can shoot from behind cover with much greater ease with a smaller mag. It's hard to shoot off of a rest with a big mag too. Not so with a small mag.

[44 AMP]

Many of the posters have covered in detail the features of modern combat weapons. Without meaning to hijack the thread, I'd like to consider (just for the sake of discussion) your original question in a slightly different light.

You asked about the attributes for a rifle for fighting humans. And virtually everyone has assumed a military type rifle. But there is fighting humans, and there is fighting humans.

What I mean is, consider the rifle for fighting humans outside of the military. And by that I mean, you are not part of the military (because if you are, they will determine what rifle you use), and since you are not part of the military, you are not restricted to FMJ ammo. That right there can go a long way to increasing the effectivness of each round. Also, without military support, your ammo situation is what you have on you, and what you can scrounge (unless you can get back to your base camp/supply cache). And also, since you are not part of the military, why should you concern yourself with all those things that the military does (like houseclearing, etc.)

And do you concern yourself with fighting against military units (all on your own?) There are so many things to consider. Facing a squad of enemy infantry is one thing. Facing a mob of looters is another. Roaming around a post apocalypse world something else again.

Your rifle needs to be accurate enough to hit a man size target at any range you can. It needs to be powerful enough to do the job at that range. It needs to be durable and dependable. And it needs to be rugged enough that emeergency use in hand to hand will not turn it into junk. Aluminium and plastic do not hold up as well as heavy wood and steel in that situation.

Notice I left out magazine capacity. Large capacity magazines are a two edged sword. Used wisely they are a benefit. But only if used wisely.

[Socrates]

Well, I think it's picture time.

To start with:
http://www.samcoglobal.com/images/cart/M2447.jpg

How can you go wrong with 8mm mauser for 130 dollars?

Swiss rounds seem to be the perfect balance between .223, and .308. 120 grain bullets, at really good velocity.
http://www.samcoglobal.com/images/cart/K31W.jpg

250 bucks, in excellent condition.

[Ignition Override]

Socrates: Very nice. No MN?

King Ghidora: Will a generic Norinco SKS in excellent condition function well with an AK magazine?
Most claim that they will not, except in the D (or M?) series.

[King Ghidora]

Just the models that have been adapted to use AK mags will work with them. That's too bad really. I have a 5 round AK mag. I saw a D model for sale recently. The guy only wanted $165 for it.

There are actually a few different models that were adapted to use the AK mags but I'm not familiar with all of them or how many there are.

[NWCP]

Nine pounds or lighter semi-auto with a 16-20" barrel and 20-30 round capacity. Either a 7.62x39, or .308 would be preferable. A good all around weapon should be flexible enough to permit urban use as well as the occasional 200-250 yard shot. It has to be reliable in a variety of weather conditions and not exceptionally sensitive to dust, dirt, or prolonged use without cleaning. I own two that I feel fit the bill nicely. A HK91 and a CZ vz58. I have a great deal of confidence in either rifle and am comfortable with them both.

[jsmaye]

From my point of view, both a handgun and a rifle have the same purpose - defending yourself and your loved ones.

The reason I said 'handgun' and not 'handgun and rifle' is that the case could be made that the rifle has dual purposes - hunting and self-defense. One could also argue that one can hunt with a handgun, but that's not its design.

I'm just not a big fan of discussing killing people. I understand it does happen. And under the right circumstances, I'll be the one pulling the trigger, without hesitation.

[SR420]

NWCP Nine pounds or lighter semi-auto with a 16-20" barrel and 20-30 round capacity. Either a 7.62x39, or .308 would be preferable.

+1

Sounds familiar :cool:


Sound suppressible 16 - 18 inch barreled 7.62 x 39 and 7.62 x 51 auto loaders with collapsible stocks

[Socrates]

The Mosin Nagant 44 is a possible choice. Short and effective.

[wogpotter]

"Actually, I don't recall saying "Battle Rifle" in the original post or any subsequent posts. In fact, I think there are a lot of downsides to a full-sized, large caliber weapon that might make it less than optimal for this role. Reduced ammo capacity, more weight, longer action...

One of the nice things about intermediate caliber weapons is that they are optimized for the ranges where most fighting occurs. You don't have to deal with the extra recoil, muzzle blast and backstop concerns of a full-powered round 90% of the time just to have the additional capability it brings for the other 10% of the time when the intermediate round is stretching the boundaries.

But I am more concerned about your criteria - you've mentioned the traits you want; but you haven't said much to me about how you would objectively measure those traits. That is the other part I was interested in hearing about."

Ok. I see your point. I was replying to how I percieved a "General fighting rifle", as a battle rifle.

For me the reliability & dependability are absolute musts. Whatever I have must run properly in adverse conditions. Water, mud, lack of cleaning, and poor, wet, dirty ammo should have no negative effect.

If I carry a rifle I want the advantages of a full power round, otherwise I'll go for something less bulky & heavy, & to me that is loosing the major advantage of a rifle, POWER. The power to do maximum practical damage at long range. For this I'll stick to something where I can use the ability to reach out & do damage beyond the range of intermediate power rounds, or carbine rounds.

Maybe it's because I learned on a 9 1/2 Lb. 30 cal rifle that was 43" long, but I have no problem carrying, manouvering & using that weight & size.

Shorter, handier carbine style weapons have a place, no doubt about that, but I go in favour of the ability of a bigger, heavier caliber to hold any adversary out there with more oomph. as a rifle should. That in turn reduces the effectiveness of the opposition in a couple of ways.
It lets me have a range advantage. That has a big effect on the morale of ant opponent. If you've ever been under fire at a range where you can't return fire effectively, you'll know how negative this can be, you feel pinned & defencless!
It gives me more freedom of movment. Knowing that the opponent is unlikely to be accurate, or effective at that distance lets me move & so on with the exact opposite of the previous situation, tipping the balance even more in my favour.

Optics likewise have a place & time, but I can use irons out to long range sucessfully, so I go with the ruggedness over all else here as well.

[freakintoguns]

IMO would be the best all around combat/battle/general purpose rifle for when the system collapses and were left to fend for ourselves. the larger rounds would be able to not only drop human threats ad a ddecent range, but would also be able to drop medium to large game and predatory animals.

[Conceal Carry]

+1 to king. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best. peace prewails with power.

[Bogie]

Figure semi-auto, decent accuracy, etc... All round use - urban as well as boonies...

Figure max 500 yard shots - beyond that, I'm going to try to boogie...

AR-15 platform, chambered for 7.62x39 or one of the rounds that's based on a "blown out" .223 case, suppressed from back inside the handguards. Then again, having a relatively easy resupply of ammo would be a plus, so figure .223...

Fast twist barrel - you can shoot little bullets in them, and they'll come apart, but they'll still do Bad Things at 50 yards...

Someone needs to come up with an "armored" scope.

I'd probably go with a cav-arms lower, possibly thumbhole stock - would like to see the thing reinforced with some aluminum rods...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmmm... it seems we have everything from a 7.62x54R bolt action with irons to a modern semi-auto in a hypothetical caliber being offered. Clearly, there is a pretty big divergence of opinion on what makes a fighting rifle for every purpose.

One thing that seems apparent is we are all imagining different scenarios and then choosing our ideal rifle based on the imaginary scenario. This isn't too unusual. Even modern armies decide doctrine and choose a rifle to suit that doctrine... when armies imagined that they would line up en masse and volley fire at each other at great distances, that is how they designed their rifles - even after increased firepower made massing of troops in the open a fatal mistake.

So maybe instead of discussing what type of rifle we find ideal for "general purpose", we need to go back and discuss what type of scenarios we are envisioning as likely? From the rifles mentioned, it looks like people are thinking everything from fighting a modern army as part of a self-supplied militia to Mad Max to ordinary vehicle or home defense.

[Moloch]

1) reliability
2) rugged
3) 2 MOA or better accuracy
4) completely user servicable
5) capable of accepting both military and commercial ammo
6) uses common mags
7) light as possible without compromising toughness.

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/7199/fr8229361nr9.jpg

Mauser FR8. .308

1.) Cant be more reliable than the Mauser system
2.) Cant be any more rugged than a bolt-action
3.) Shoots a little bit over 2 MOA
4.) Mauser bolt system be stripped and cleaned in a minute and is idiot safe
5.) Capable of using ANY ammo as long as the chambering is right
6.) Internal mag, so no problem here
7.) 8 pounds, 37’’ long, though as my grandma

Additionally it does have a bayonet and a muzzle flash hider, a small storage tube, peep sights for 2,3 and 400 yards and a rear v-notch for close quarter combat. It also has a hand-cover and is phosphatized.

[wogpotter]

"Someone needs to come up with an "armored" scope."
It's already been done:cool:
Hensoldt "Blitz" mount.
It takes a Hensoldt Fero Z-24 scope & darn near totally encloses it in a thick alloy shell.
The mount is a bit high but it is a real armoured scope if you don't mind the weight/bulk penalty.

[King Ghidora]

I look at the possible scenarios in different categories. First category would be a full out invasion by an opposing army. I put it in this category because I feel it is the least likely scenario to occur. We can speculate about such things but I don't expect it to happen. It would take a mighty force to invade the USA. Mexico is the most likely culprit but I they learned their lesson for a while. Yet people have a way of forgetting how badly they got their butts kicked before no matter how many times it's happened. Mexicans still believe they own the southwest and they have tried to get a latino revolution in this country at least twice in the last century. They also sided with Hitler because they hate us so much.

The second scenario and the second least likely would be the Mad Max world. It could happen quickly with a well placed nuke or two and there are lots of countries that would love to do it to us and even some of our own people would like to do it. Explode an EMP type nuke 200 miles above Kansas and it's instant Mad Max land. Still not that likely though IMO.

The third and obviously the most likely is the Katrina / LA riots type scenario that we've already seen more than once. Gangs are powerful in this country and they take advantage of bad situations to gather up booty of all kinds. This is the scenario that does worry me though I do sometimes worry about both of the first two situations too. I've seen the disaster conditions in my area that could well have made for the same situations but people are heavily armed here and everyone knows it. It wouldn't be as easy as it was in places where the good guys have no protection. The freaking LEO's took guns away from the good guys in New Orleans after the storm. How stupid is that? It would never happen here because few people are that stupid. But the BG's might not know that. We could be forced to prove it won't be easy to take advantage of a bad situation here. For two weeks we were essentially isolated from the world. I had a generator and could get national news but they don't care about flyover country. They never mentioned a word of our situation here. It's probably good that they didn't really because we weren't invaded by gangs like NO was.

It's the gangs that I feel I must prepare to face. Let's face it there's only a limited amount of good we could do against a real army by ourselves anyway. A sniper type rifle is your only choice in that situation. The Russians made it work for them at Stalingrad for a while until the real army could get in position. It must have been a big shock when the German 6th army found themselves surrounded by huge numbers of Soviet tanks and artillery. They had been so successful up to that point. What a feeling it must have been knowing you were cut off in the blink of an eye and your old buddy Hitler told you to hang tight in your position. Anyway back to the subject. I picked a weapon that can be effective in all 3 categories but more effective in the second and third categories. The truth is though we are likely doomed in all but the third situation.

[freakintoguns]

The third and obviously the most likely is the Katrina / LA riots type scenario that we've already seen more than once. Gangs are powerful in this country and they take advantage of bad situations to gather up booty of all kinds. This is the scenario that does worry me though I do sometimes worry about both of the first two situations too. I've seen the disaster conditions in my area that could well have made for the same situations but people are heavily armed here and everyone knows it. It wouldn't be as easy as it was in places where the good guys have no protection. The freaking LEO's took guns away from the good guys in New Orleans after the storm. How stupid is that? It would never happen here because few people are that stupid. But the BG's might not know that. We could be forced to prove it won't be easy to take advantage of a bad situation here. For two weeks we were essentially isolated from the world. I had a generator and could get national news but they don't care about flyover country. They never mentioned a word of our situation here. It's probably good that they didn't really because we weren't invaded by gangs like NO was.




im assuming you live in Texas out in the Port Author area?

[HJ857]

I tend to assume that regardless of the situation, government forces will be on my side. With that consideration I think the AR is the only choice.

With that consideration, if one is being observed from a distance and the rifle is the only thing easily identifiable by profile/outline only, then I think any other rifle is likely to put you in to the "hostile combatant" category. Less so for a bolt action, much more so if one is holding an AK.

[MacGille]

In my opinion, the best rifle for battle has already been issued. The M1. Powerful, rugged, accurate, jam proof, light enough for anyone who doesn't spend most of his time on the couch. No fragile external magazine to jam. capable of bayonet use. Rifle grenade launching. Not susceptible to fouling out of action. No plastic to break, What more can you ask?

Millions of ex-GIs can and will attest to virtues of the U.S. rifle Caliber .30 M1. These men and women love it because it works. So do I. Nuff said.:p

[Caeser2001]

the larger rounds would be able to not only drop human threats ad a ddecent range, but would also be able to drop medium to large game and predatory animals.

something that is quite often over looked, imho, I mean, you gotta eat right?

[NWPilgrim]

So maybe instead of discussing what type of rifle we find ideal for "general purpose", we need to go back and discuss what type of scenarios we are envisioning as likely? From the rifles mentioned, it looks like people are thinking everything from fighting a modern army as part of a self-supplied militia to Mad Max to ordinary vehicle or home defense.

BR: I agree. Fundamentally, we would all have to adapt whatever weapon we have to the situation that arises. Kind of natural for us to select a tool for the most likely, or the most worst case scenario, and then plan to adapt to any other conditions.

Given my current rifles, and a worst case scenario, I would go with the Garand. It is rugged, and without an external mag it is streamlined, won't be hanging up on stuff. It also has some of the best ever iron sights.

If I limited my self to just being around the house or driving, then I would want one of my ARs with optics. The AR is such a great platform for optics, and optics are such a huge advantage in low light and at end-of-long-driveway distances.

[King Ghidora]

im assuming you live in Texas out in the Port Author area?

Actually I live in SE Ohio. We had an ice storm here that was beyond belief. On some hills every single tree was knocked down by the weight of the ice. Power was out, phones were out, even tv and radio was out. The broadcast towers fell down. Every road was blocked too. A gang could have had a field day going house to house gathering booty. At least they could have if this wasn't hillbilly country where everyone has at least one gun and usually several.

Sure the BG's would have had to carry any booty but cash and jewelry is light enough to carry easily. There are lots of things that could have been carried off easily. No LEO's could possilbly have helped short of showing up in a helicopter and even that would have been hard. There's nowhere to land in the forests.

The national press didn't even notice us. I know because I had a generator and a satellite dish and a tv. The national news never mentioned us once except one time they said a tv tower was down. Other places when ice storms hit it's national news but not here. We aren't part of the USA apparently. I'll never forgive them for not helping us. We needed to know if the water was safe, if we could expect help within weeks or months. It took months to get it all fixed BTW. I was one of the lucky ones. My power was only out for 2 weeks. We had water but we had no way of knowing if it was affected by the power problems. Processing water takes power. Later we found out the water plant did have it's own backup power so it was ok but we had no way of knowing that when it counted.

This ice storm wiped out a huge area across 3 states. But apparently it wasn't an important area because not a word was said about it. I'll never forgive them for that. If you live in flyover country don't expect any help from the national press or the national government. Luckily I had enough insulin to last me through the toughest part of the disaster because if I wouldn't have had it I would have been on foot trying to get more with downed powerlines everywhere.

BTW Bill Clinton was president at the time. So much for the Democrats being more on the ball when it comes to disasters. They blamed Bush for the Katrina problems. We never saw the first bit of help ever from Bill Clinton.

[blhseawa]

I would look at what armies around the world are using for small arms today as a starting point and go from there.

I can think of four rifles that would fit the bill, and still be in the reasonable to afford category.

1) Ruger Mini-14 civilian version of the US M14 only in 223 rather than 308.

2) M1 carbine, a 30 cal and still easy on the recoil.

3) M4A1 standard issue US rifle only in the semi civilian configuration.

4) AK 47 or AK 74, choice of 7.62 x 39 or 5.45 x 39, I favor the AK 74

That would be my choices based upon your criteria.

[jsmaye]

First category would be a full out invasion by an opposing army. I put it in this category because I feel it is the least likely scenario to occur. We can speculate about such things but I don't expect it to happen. It would take a mighty force to invade the USA. Mexico is the most likely culprit but I they learned their lesson for a while. Yet people have a way of forgetting how badly they got their butts kicked before no matter how many times it's happened. Mexicans still believe they own the southwest...

It may not be that far-fetched to lose some territory to an invasion by Mexico. They would not have to conquer America - just sit back, wait for the Euro-centric liberal appeasement crowd to win office, then stream across the border and dig in, yelling about how the U.S.A. stole this land. In the blind interest of "global brotherhood" and "citizens of the world" and "consensus-building", I can see us relinquishing those parts; after all, in some eyes, the U.S.A. deserves some come-uppance. Remember all those who blamed Georgia for being invaded by Russia.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Remember all those who blamed Georgia for being invaded by Russia.

Many people blamed Georgia because they attacked and killed Russian peacekeepers in the breakaway region of Ossetia during a Georgian invasion of the separatist province. They did this after being warned not to by the U. S. Considering that those peacekeepers were there as the result of a U.S.-EU brokered peace agreement that Georgia had signed, many considered this 'bad form'.

Now the Georgian response would be that the Russians weren't doing much peacekeeping and that they had been shelled repeatedly by Ossetian separatists operating from Russian-controlled regions.

Whichever side you take, I think we can agree that the comparison to our relations with Mexico is dubious (given the lack of Mexican troops carrying out peacekeeping duties on U.S. soil or vice versa) and that the general topic of international politics is probably off topic for Rifles and definitely way off topic for this thread.

Unless you were planning to discuss how those incidents made you consider certain factors in the selection of your rifle ;)

[King Ghidora]

At the risk of hijacking this thread I'd just like to add that McCain was in large part responsible for the midnight amnesty bill. White guilt seems to have become a biparisan concern.

If I lived anywhere near the US - Mexico border you can bet I'd be armed with more than one battle rifle. Mexican troops have been seen on US soil many, many times. W certainly did nothing to discourage them. In fact he tried to create a North American union. Those who think he lied about Iraq missed what he was really up to.

This is a very good reason to own a battle rifle because the situation could become explosive at any time. Check out the history of the Mexican radio stations in the 1920's when they were preaching a revolt and taking back much of the west. It was connected to the Mexican Revolution. It was also another time of very high immigration to the US. Only the Great Depression really put a stop to this.

Again my point is that this should inspire all of us to own a battle rifle. Possibly you could need one some day.

I ask forgiveness from the moderators and the OP and the rest of the folk in this thread for bringing up a political point but is connected to the OP's question in a way. I really don't want to hijack the thread though.