Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
which rifle or carbine did you like the best? Why did you like it, and what could have been better about it? What did you like or dislike about the other ones that weren't your favorite ones? Memory lane and nostalgia, as it were.
I'm not a gun nut, weapons are, to me, tools and no more. All had strengths and weaknesses. As far as "like" goes. the '03 with a scope was fun to shoot and the M-14 was a decent compromise. The M1 was the hardest to harm, the BAR the most all round reliable and the M-16 was the easiest to handle (outside of the so-called Manual of Arms, which is sorta dumb IMO anyway...). I didn't like the weight of the M1 or BAR, did not and do not like that cartridge of the M-16. I carried both M1 and M2 Carbines briefly, bad cartridge as you say and the short stroke piston, like gas impingement is not optimum. If I had to use an issue long gun in combat today, I'd go with the M-14 as a decent compromise (and yes, that short stroke piston isn't ideal... ).

Of non-issued (US) weapons I have fired, I like the Bren, the Japanese Type 99, the M1941 Johnson LMG (not the rifle, haven't fired it) and the FN FAL. I did not like the G3 (or most of the H&K models). I do not like bullpups (compactness is vastly overrated IMO, all weapons are compromises but one gives up too much in the way of range, reliability and functioning for small envelopes). If I could pick any long gun w/o regard to issue status, I'd probably go with an updated FAL like a DSA for range and power in arctic, desert, mountains or most temperate areas; probably a Valmet Rk 95 for jungle (there are some newer types out there but these two have proven reliability records...). However, weapons, like most everything else should really be chosen with an eye on what one is to do -- METT-TC...