It seems to me that an historical trend seems to going to
low training low accurately weapons for the soldier. (ie longbow to Musket) (Rifle to assault rifle/submachine gun).

I was looking at some modern soldiers pictures and wondering
were are the rifles? It seems the trend is going to mass fire again.
What are the advantages of an assault rifle?, for long range
I'd prefer a Lee Enfield, short range a Winchester trench gun
(think pump shotgun) or a true submachine gun.

Methinks rumours of the rifles demise have been greatly exagerrated. ;)

Weapons change as war changes, and metamorphosis is not the same as obsolescence.

As to advantages, an assault rifle allows greater volume of fire than the Lee Enfield, and serves the job close up as well. It can do both, without requiring major changes to it.
It allows for standardization of weapons, and thus ammunition, rather than employing a whole menagerie of different arms.

I too believe that the rifle will be around for a good time yet. If we dump that, what will we use? Plasma Shards? Not bloody likely... :D

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
As to advantages, an assault rifle allows greater volume of fire than the Lee Enfield, and serves the job close up as well. It can do both, without requiring major changes to it.
It allows for standardization of weapons, and thus ammunition, rather than employing a whole menagerie of different arms.

Exactly, greater volume of fire with decreased long range
accuracy. No short barrel carbine is going to be as accurate
as a long barrel rifle.

303 was a British standard in various machine guns,
submachine guns and rifles. I am only using Enfield
as an example because everyone (or at least a lot
of people) will know that weapon.

Originally posted by History Guy
I too believe that the rifle will be around for a good time yet. If we dump that, what will we use? Plasma Shards? Not bloody likely... :D

Pointly Sticks

Originally posted by History Guy
I too believe that the rifle will be around for a good time yet. If we dump that, what will we use? Plasma Shards? Not bloody likely... :D

Longbows?:rolleyes:

If we dump that, what will we use? Plasma Shards? Not bloody likely...

Rubber bands? :D

No, you are all wrong, especially Primeval Dragon (sorry, Mr. President :D ). The real answer is, ta-da: Stainless-steel kitchen ware from Sears!

the war will now be :ak-47(kalaschnikof)for poor countrys and a belgian or isrealian gun for rich armies.
maby the rifles will now have special scopes so it can also be used as sniperrifle
.:sniper:
:scout:

Standard ground pounders will ALWAYS need a rifle, but the look of the rifle has changed.

And since many rifles moonlight as assault weapons anyway, a rifle might get further modernized, but never replaced.

P.S. Phillipe, one of the most widely distributed Belgian weapons is the Squad Automatic Weapon. I can say with my expert opinion that it is a piece of JUNK. I would rather have a larger, more reliable machine gun (M60, M240B,G) than a lightweight piece of junk.

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
Standard ground pounders will ALWAYS need a rifle, but the look of the rifle has changed.

And since many rifles moonlight as assault weapons anyway, a rifle might get further modernized, but never replaced.

P.S. Phillipe, one of the most widely distributed Belgian weapons is the Squad Automatic Weapon. I can say with my expert opinion that it is a piece of JUNK. I would rather have a larger, more reliable machine gun (M60, M240B,G) than a lightweight piece of junk.

I am thinking the modern assualt rifles have more in common with sub machineguns than rifles. Would you call a SAW or Personal weapon a rifle? I think rifles as a standard weapon have shifted closer the sub machine gun class than the sniper class.

The real answer is, ta-da: Stainless-steel kitchen ware from Sears!

:eek: On behalf of the United Nations, I apply economic sanctions against you, you aggressive, weapons-of-mass-destruction-seeking, axis-of-evil dictator!! :D

Originally posted by philippe
the war will now be :ak-47(kalaschnikof)for poor countrys and a belgian or isrealian gun for rich armies.
maby the rifles will now have special scopes so it can also be used as sniperrifle
.:sniper:
:scout:

Just a sidenote. Has anyone ever noticed how Unreal Tournament's sniper rifle is just a Colt M16 with a longer barrel and scope?

I agree Ozz, and that's because you get more bang for your buck when you produce a rifle that also can serve as a LMG.

And with all of the weight that soldiers are carrying these days, it makes more sense to let the rifle serve MANY purposes, rather than coming up with new equiptment to carry.

Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
I agree Ozz, and that's because you get more bang for your buck when you produce a rifle that also can serve as a LMG.

And with all of the wieght that soldiers are carrying these days, it makes more sense to let the rifle serve MANY purposes, rather than coming up with new equiptment to carry.
And thats apparently what the US army is doing with the OICW, making a gun capable of support fire, assault, long-range accuracy, and even blowing up stuff with the gren launcher

Originally posted by Globber

And thats apparently what the US army is doing with the OICW, making a gun capable of support fire, assault, long-range accuracy, and even blowing up stuff with the gren launcher

Isn't that what Delta Force and the NAvy Seals use:confused: :ak47::sniper::ripper: :rocket: :rocket2: :rocket3:

In a word, no.

They employ MP5 SMGs among other weapons, whereas the OICW is a weapon still being developed. Looks slightly similar to the Austeyr in some fashions.

I think that rifles could survive for another fifty to a hundred years as personal weaponery. As long as people feel they must arm themselves, relatively cheap inexpensive weapons will always be around. I think that the rifle will be that weapon for decades to come.

Originally posted by RenegadeXH
I think that rifles could survive for another fifty to a hundred years as personal weaponery. As long as people feel they must arm themselves, relatively cheap inexpensive weapons will always be around. I think that the rifle will be that weapon for decades to come.

Cheap weapon? I think the British Sten Gun would be hard to
beat in manufacturing cost.

I heard that the rifle was dropped as a result of the experiences in WWII of most armies, ie that heavy volume of fire was preferable to accuracy (obviously, in such mass combat) but ALSO that the accuracy the rifle offered just couldn't be attained in practice because the troops just weren't good enough at handling them.

If you think of the panic and confusion that is combat - it's abit unrealistic to expect the average 1940s squaddy to take the time and risk of carefully aiming a single shot weapon. Give em a hose and they feel much better, the trainings quicker and the chances of hitting something much higher.

Now, if all armies adopt that tactic you'd be a bit daft to try and base your forces on single shot accuracy nowadays - they'd be ripped to shreds. Only snipers need them anymore

Originally posted by Rodgers
If you think of the panic and confusion that is combat - it's abit unrealistic to expect the average 1940s squaddy to take the time and risk of carefully aiming a single shot weapon

Weren't the 1940 Germans in the main also armed with bolt action rifles (Mausers?), Assault rifles came out in 44 i believe.

Modern assault rifles seem more akin to smgs that rifles. True
Rifles seem destined to be like you pointed out a specialist
weapon (sniper).

Yeah, you're right, as were the Tommies (Lee Enfields) but by the end (when the lessons I mentioned in last post had been learnt) most armies were using smgs and if they'd had resources to do so I bet all jerries would have been using MP44s by the close of play.

The Rifles Demise was caused simply by the introduction of mass firepower to the battlefield. Which forced the infrantryman to engage his foes at close quaters. With the bayonet displaced by automatic weapons the rifle was an uneeded relic.

Originally posted by Globber

And thats apparently what the US army is doing with the OICW, making a gun capable of support fire, assault, long-range accuracy, and even blowing up stuff with the gren launcher

Maybe i'm way off, but making a good-for-all gun would, in my opinion, create a gun that is useful, but not REALLY good in anything, and at the same time, heavy to carry - after all, making it a combo does not instantly make the multiple parts any lighter.

Regardless of how much development you can give to a gun of multiple uses, it would never be able to match the specs of specialized weaponry IMHO.

I do not even pretend to think that i understand anything of combat situations - perhaps the combat experts can add their perspective - but wouldn't the ideal situation be "combined troops"? Specialized units working together, each one dealing with it's expertise, instead of un-specialized "we play the game in all positions" soldiers?