In the real world of assault rifles (5.56x45, 7.62x39, 5.45x39) you're simply not doing it right if you don't use an M16 variant or an AK variant. Even with their flaws there's really nothing else out there that comes close to them. This was only a "top 10" list because nobody wants to read a "Top 2" list!

If you keep an M16 variant and its mags relatively clean and lubed properly for the terrain & climate it'll go bang every time you pull the trigger. You just have to do the maintenance. We were cleaning ours 5-6 times a day during the Desert Storm ground war, simply because sandstorms and the dust of traveling in the middle of huge brigade slices meant a lot of sand & dust got in weapons. We had a civilian maintenance tech from Red River Army Depot traveling with my unit (A/13 FA (MLRS)) and he got us case upon case of silicone spray lube that we just hosed our weapons down with at every stop, but a minute to push the takedown pin, wipe off the bolt carrier group & inside of the upper receiver with a rag cut from a T-shirt, and hitting the locking lug area with a Q-tip was all that was necessary. Everybody worked out their own way to keep as much dust & sand as possible out of their weapons; I taped an MRE spoon wrapper over the muzzle and wrapped an old T-shirt around the receivers in such a way that the sight, trigger, ejection port, and may release were left clear. Most of the dust got in via the grooves stamped in the mags, anyway.

The AK can handle a lot more dirt without jamming, but no soldier worth a damn is going to let it stay dirty a second longer than necessary. They're not jam-proof, and it's better to miss 5 minutes of sleep to wipe down and lube your weapon. It's not like they have to be turn-in-to-the-arms-room clean, after all.

If I had a choice in the matter, I'd like an M14. I absolutely LOVED my M1A, I trusted it just as much as I trusted my M16 or an AK, and the way its much heavier round turned cover into concealment was a nice bennie. An inline stock and 16" barrel would be just about perfect. Make the stock & receiver out of titanium for lightness and superior strength (not sure if it'd work for the barrel) and it'd be hard to beat IMO.

Bullpups have a lot of potential but the execution has sucked until very recently, the only real remaining technical hurdle at this point IMO is the huge length-of-pull.

I prefer conventional layout as far as normal target shooting goes but bullpups are so much handier and easier to keep at the ready for long periods of time than all but the shortest conventional rifles.

Thanks for that...i'll have to look it up.

edit...looked it up. I'll stick with the 203

Me too, the M320 looks like a solution in search of a problem. For example:



I carried an M16/M203 for quite a bit of my 12 years, and never had a problem with either the leaf sight (integral to the top of the M203 handguard) or the quadrant sight (attached to the left side of the rifle carry handle.) If you can get confused between the rifle sights and the grenade launcher sights, you most likely also get confused between the rifle's pistol grip and the magazine because they both stick out from the bottom. And how often do M203s get removed from one rifle and installed on another? I never saw it happen other than when a rifle was taken out of service. If you switched duty positions to or from one for which the MTOE called for you to be issued an M16/M203, you and the person whose position you were taking merely swapped weapons. The armorer didn't remove the M203 from M16 #71 and install it on M16 #104. And why point out the fact that the M320 is breech-loading when the M203 is as well? $3500 bucks for that thing! Those South African rotary grenade launchers sound better to me. So does putting a laser rangefinder on the M203 and shortening its barrel for use with the M4.

Well, if I had to create a top ten assault rifle (including or not the so called "battle rifles") and while being a gamer myself, I would never put the AK family such as the AK-47/AKM is the first place, in the second place maybe but not on the first.
Yes, I admit that the AK family is the world's most widespread assault rifle and therefore the most iconic and "popular" among the vast majority of countries and people around the world. It's also a rifle which needs much less maintenance than any or most other assault rifles, for example you can see them on the hands of African militiamen/insurgents/ill-equipped armies/etc... and they still fire in circumstances where most other assault rifles would have a very hard time to properly function. Also I watched a documentary about the AK-47 in the History Channel and there was a guy that currently works for Jane's Defence but served in the US Army during the Vietnam War and there he captured an AK-47 from a dead VC (or was it NVA?) then put the AK in his locker only to return several weeks later to find it in a completely rusty state but for his surprise he chambered his AK and it still fired!

But IMO the major problem with the AK series, namely the often referred AK-47/AKM is firing precision. Precision is a feature that must IMO be among the most important if not the most important for any assault rifle and the AK-47/AKM precision is poor at best when comparing to any other assault rifles.
Curiously I have read that what makes the AK series to require such a low maintenance is exactly the reason that makes these rifles poor in terms of precision, which is having considerable clearances between mechanical parts which allows dirt (such as sand) to enter the rifle and don't mess that much with the rifle's mechanical parts but those clearances aren't good for precision firing since the distribution of gases aren't very effective, at least this is what I'm told!

So (and again IMO) in order for an assault rifle to be in first place of a "top ten" it must be a good "all-around" rifle, something that the AK-47/AKM is definitely not! (again, lack of firing precision and not only)

And so I would put the AR family (M-16/M-4/C7/C8, etc...) in the first place:
- They are almost as widespread, iconic and "popular" around the world as the AK.
- Like it was mentioned before by NH2112 (and others I believe), the AR family requires considerably more maintenance compared to the AK but with proper maintenance the AR family is just as reliable as the AK.
- Much more precise when firing than the AK family.
Resuming the AR/M-16/M-4/etc... are rifles that are indeed good "all-around", essential to be in the top of the "top ten"!

Modern ak's in 5.45 and 5.56 are much more accurate than the older sorts. On par with most run of the mill assault rifles. In these calibers the rare 1 MOA do occasionally happen. I would never have believed that until I repeatedly shot an ak variant from a cold barrel that was printing around 1 moa at 100 yards. Granted once warmed up in returns to its usual 2 -2.5 inch norm. This in 5.56 and made in 2008 my izmash in Russia. General AK sights IMO suck at range, but work vary well for rapid closer work. Once you stick an optic on it its a different ball game. Its safety/selector/dust cover is a bit goofy but makes up for it.

But for cost, reliability and easy of everything is just works well.

Would a good AK in 5.56 or 5.45 be my 1st personal pick? Probably not. But if you got pick something would depend on where you are in the world. Longer ranges are the norm, give me a 7.62 any day. If woods\urban\jungle I would take a good hard look at well made ak sort.

That's kind of the point of the AK, it was optimized for the relatively short ranges typical of infantry firefights, beyond which you're better off with a "real" rifle with an optic, like say, an SVD.

I prefer an AK in 7.62x39 over the other calibers, its not as accurate and the ballistics are #weaksauce at range, but it hits hard and will keep up with 7.62x51 and the like at close range as far as barrier penetration goes.

Modern 5.45 AKs (such as the AK-74) are indeed an improvement (in accuracy) over older 7.62 AK-47/AKM but it still doesn't seem to be on part with lets say an M-16 or even an M-4.

Anyway, the weapon that appears on the top of those "top ten" lists is the AK-47/AKM 7.62 variants and not the newer 5.45 variants such as the AK-74 hence why I never referred to the newer variants of the AK.

IMO, it would make sense to prefer an assault rifle which is not only good for shorts ranges but also for longer ranges and not having to completely rely on another longer weapon (such as the SVD) which someone else on the squad could or not be carrying, which is actually the purpose of an Assault Rifle.
If it's only good for short ranges than why not choose an SMG instead? Yes, I know that the caliber used by assault rifle is much more powerful than ones used on SMG (usually pistol rounds) but in the end I always get the idea that the AK family, namely the AK-47/AKM is basically a "beefed up" SMG (or closer to a SMG than to a rifle) which again is something that to be honest, I don't like much.

I gotten my H&K 91, 93, 94 and their full auto versions covered and caked in mud and dirt and other grime and they still fired each and every time round after round.

A single rifle and cartridge can't do everything, you'll notice that Western militaries fielded Dedicated Marksman's Rifles of their own after finding that standard assault rifles, even with good optics, weren't really up to the task at long ranges.

I found the cocking tube on the HK series of weapons to be a problem. Any debris in the slot became a problem. I found that was a problem in sand and brush. Unlike the dust cover on the M16, there was no way to seal/cover the opening. Would have to force cock it by putting the cocking lever against something solid and shoving the weapon forward to force it through. And if the debris was large/solid enough, it didn't fully charge the weapon. Otherwise, I like them very much. I have a CETME, 2 HK91, PTR91, C91, HK93, C93, and 2 SW45. I have done parts replacements in them to the military parts so that I can use my NFA registered sear/trigger pack in any of them so they can be select fire (full auto capable). Not as ergonomically friendly as the M16. Harder to work on and gunsmith. For me it has the drawback of different threading for muzzle so I have to use adaptors to use my Standard pitch right hand threaded suppressors (silencers) on them. They are harder on the brass during ejection which limits the amount of reloading repetitions and requires more cleaning and checking. Brass collection is harder since they throw the bras forward to the right rather than to the side or side/rear. If firing from concealment, the shiney spinning brass to the front right is more noticeable. The 5.56 HK93 and C93 are heavier then the M16.

But much of the preference is based on what you used early in your life and training. Like your first love. Also National feelings will have some impact on your preference.

I'm sure that I've missed things, but that stuff comes to mind.

The AK is plenty accurate to hit a man at just about any range encountered in combat. An infantry rifle doesn't have to be, and was never intended to be, sniper-rifle accurate. The M16 is definitely capable of greater absolute accuracy than the AK, but there aren't numbered rings with an "X" in the center on uniforms. Any hit that ruins the other guy's concentration on shooting YOU is a hit in the "X". A miss that forces you to keep your head down while the shooter's buddy maneuvers to within hand grenade range is a hit in the "X". An inaccurate rifle that keeps you from sticking your head up to shoot because it's hitting the rocks, logs, or sandbags you're taking cover behind is just as effective as an accurate rifle that drills you right between the eyes when you stick your head up to shoot.

Put a decent optical sight on an AK - that mounts to the receiver instead of the flimsy top cover - and most of its accuracy problems are gone (the open rear sight with its short sight radius is the single greatest cause of inaccuracy.)

LOL I read that as M3 the first time through.



(public domain pic from Wikipedia)

I'd put the M16 and variants second behind the AK series out of sheer numbers made and countries that use them.

Gotta go along with that.
Proper tool for the proper job.
No 'one' rifle could really be considered the 'best', or number one spot, for all uses.
Although I'm out of my element, with rifles. Handguns are a little more familiar to me.

But I'm certain every different situation, would require a specific tool.
Maybe, a lot would even depend upon the user.

Hard for me to pick which one to put up there, on top, just for those two reasons.

Some of those, I've never even heard of

Nope, I surrender to the guys who have used them in combat, and know much more than many of us here.

To be fair, the HK 416 is standard issue in the USMC, even if in a limited role as the M27. It is also the standard issue rifle of Norway. Recently some French SF units have replaced the 416 with the SCAR. A French SWAT/sniper has been pictured using a 7.62 SCAR during the 2012 terrorist attack to.

I have not read much, if any, complaints with the SIG SG series aside from it being a bit front heavy. It certainly looks nice to:

I dont know if the SVT-40 has been mentioned but it was an early Soviet 7.62 semi auto design.
A nice overview by Hickock45 was posted recently.
Turns out many were captured by the Germans early in the war.

SVT 40 was an interesting weapon. Had the war started a few years later all front line Red Army soldiers would of had one. Good rifle overall. M1 Garand good? HMMm no. But way better than the German G41.

I have developed a soft spot for Russian small arms design. Pragmatic and practical weapons that generally work well. Not fancy, even crude, but they seem to work really well. Building a rifle shovel strong for a basic Army's weapon that works seems like a good idea to me.

Some of best assault rifles are:
Steyr Aug
FN SCAR
M4 Carbine

I've talked up the AK a lot in this thread but as far as me personally owning one goes, I'd go AR just for the fact that it makes everything else look "off brand" as far as market presence in North America.

Even though I hardly live in a Mecca of firearms ownership I have a custom AR manufacturer nearby, and plenty of AR centric carbine classes to choose from, I can even find components for them in places that don't even sell firearms...

I don't own one right now because their "Restricted" legal status in Canada makes them a range-only affair but that's no technical fault of the design.