Quite simply, guns. And who has made the best guns in history. I'm talking small-arms here. Please note that I mean from WW2 onward.

I don't know WHY Britain is on that list. The only UK design currently fielded that is any good is the Sterling SMG - basically a WW2 Sten gun with some flash extras.

The SA80 is "the civil servant - it doesn't work and you can't fire it", the SLR was Belgian (as is the GPMG). The Minimi is from the US and a couple of units occasionally use M16s or equivalents.

US has OK weapons. Wouldn't say they were the best, but at least they work.

Canada's M16 equivalent is very nice (sorry, can't rember the name - C11? C9?) but is really just a match grade M16. At $5000 a pop it would have to be pretty special.

So, Russia (very nice sub-artillery pieces like the DShK and KPV), Germany or Israel (Galil = best assault rifle)... I'd say Germany for its all around armoury. MP5 is excellent SMG, G3 likewise for battlerifle, M3 great MG and the G11 is like nothing else on Earth.

Germany, but other countries have nice weapons too. Swiss make a nice gun.

SWEDEN! Where would modern mayham be without the Bofors products? The Swedisk SMG was up until the 80's the most used SMG in the world. Swedish ordenence land mines have been taking off legs in most Asian hot spots and the Carl Gustav and the AT4 have been frying tank crews from the Sinai war right up until now, modern Iraq.

I would have to go with Germany on that one, companies like Heckler and Koch among others have done a lot in terms of small arms from what little I know, with all their SMGs like the MP5 and well... one of my personal favorites from games at least, the UMP. And their pistols such as the USP are good sidearms as well I think.

Originally posted by CruddyLeper
Canada's M16 equivalent is very nice (sorry, can't rember the name - C11? C9?) but is really just a match grade M16. At $5000 a pop it would have to be pretty special.

Close - it's the C7. Basic differences are (1) heavier barrel designed for all-weather conditions; (2) detachable trigger guard "so you can fire it with heavy gloves on." Go figure as to why, (brrr!).

Germany gets my vote. Consistent, attractive, reliable: HKMP%, the G3, etc. I still have a soft spot for FN, though. A good African dictatorship gun.

Depends what you mean by "best".

For instance, while the American Armalite series M-16 is in many ways a far superior weapon technically than the AK-47, it also requires a higher level of maintenance and greater training. This is why Third World armies, insurgent armies, terrorists, etc. - militaries who employ many semi-literate people with minimal skills or education - use the AK-47, because it's simple and needs only minimal maintenance. It works best for them - but in the hands a a trained modern soldier, the M-16 is the better weapon. Warfare is situational; there is rarely any absolute value to a weapon on a battlefield. It depends who is using it, how, and in what circumstances. The JU88 "Stuka" was devastating when used in Eastern Europe in 1939-41 but against the Allies after 1944 it was a flying chicken just waiting to get shot out of the sky.

I'd say Germany for producing high-quality and ground-breaking equipment on a constant basis.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Depends what you mean by "best".

For instance, while the American Armalite series M-16 is in many ways a far superior weapon technically than the AK-47, it also requires a higher level of maintenance and greater training. This is why Third World armies, insurgent armies, terrorists, etc. - militaries who employ many semi-literate people with minimal skills or education - use the AK-47, because it's simple and needs only minimal maintenance. It works best for them - but in the hands a a trained modern soldier, the M-16 is the better weapon. Warfare is situational; there is rarely any absolute value to a weapon on a battlefield. It depends who is using it, how, and in what circumstances. The JU88 "Stuka" was devastating when used in Eastern Europe in 1939-41 but against the Allies after 1944 it was a flying chicken just waiting to get shot out of the sky.

If I had a choice between being shot at with a 5.56mm weapon (M16) and being shot at with a 7.62mm weapon (AK47) I'd pick the M16 every time.

AK47's make bigger holes in you. Not that I relish having holes made in me, you understand... it's just I'd rather survive after the event.

Originally posted by CruddyLeper


If I had a choice between being shot at with a 5.56mm weapon (M16) and being shot at with a 7.62mm weapon (AK47) I'd pick the M16 every time.

AK47's make bigger holes in you. Not that I relish having holes made in me, you understand... it's just I'd rather survive after the event.

I understand that the AK may techincally make a bigger hole in you, but the m-16 bullets hurt you more once inside your body. Don't they tumble in your body and tear it up or something? As opposed to the 7.62 AK-47 that simply goes into your body and stops.

Originally posted by Sturmgewehr


I understand that the AK may techincally make a bigger hole in you, but the m-16 bullets hurt you more once inside your body. Don't they tumble in your body and tear it up or something? As opposed to the 7.62 AK-47 that simply goes into your body and stops.

There once WAS an element of truth to this - no more. The original AR-15 had a slightly different bullet and a barrel with less twists on the lands - the bullet had a minimal spin, so when it tumbled, into tended to cause a bigger mess than a bullet that just penetrated.

However, back in 70s ? when NATO decided to standardise 5.56mm, bullet chosen as standard was not compatible - so M16s took new barrels and shot pretty much like every other rifle.

Documentary evidence was Falklands War, when both sides had 7.62mm FALS (bit meatier than AK47 but pretty much same at line of sight range). HOWEVER, some UK Marine units had M16s.

In firefights, often took 3-4 hits to actually kill the target Argentine. With a FAL, one hit, you go down and you don't get up. Even if you aren't dead, chances are that you will be soon.

Not saying M16 isn't lethal. Not saying it can't kill if it hits a vulnerable area- but the AK47 nickname is "Widowmaker". It's more lethal, as opposed to gradually knocking lumps out of you.

Hence my post.

In terms of rifles Germany has been the best all-round this century.

In terms of handguns Germany was also a strong contender until the Austrian Glock came along and Austria/Glock has been the all-out best since then.

just think of germany's MG42, and u know the answer :eek:

Mothers make the greatest small arms you`ll ever see in your life, I think any country can compete...maybe China or France has a bit of a lead on others.

Originally posted by CruddyLeper


There once WAS an element of truth to this - no more. The original AR-15 had a slightly different bullet and a barrel with less twists on the lands - the bullet had a minimal spin, so when it tumbled, into tended to cause a bigger mess than a bullet that just penetrated.

However, back in 70s ? when NATO decided to standardise 5.56mm, bullet chosen as standard was not compatible - so M16s took new barrels and shot pretty much like every other rifle.

Documentary evidence was Falklands War, when both sides had 7.62mm FALS (bit meatier than AK47 but pretty much same at line of sight range). HOWEVER, some UK Marine units had M16s.

In firefights, often took 3-4 hits to actually kill the target Argentine. With a FAL, one hit, you go down and you don't get up. Even if you aren't dead, chances are that you will be soon.

Not saying M16 isn't lethal. Not saying it can't kill if it hits a vulnerable area- but the AK47 nickname is "Widowmaker". It's more lethal, as opposed to gradually knocking lumps out of you.

Hence my post.

NATO originally replaced 7.62mm rounds with 5.56mm rounds because of that. A 5.56 is more likely to 'merely' injure, resulting in two fit soldiers to drag their wounded comrade into shelter, and practically getting 3 enemies with 1 shot.

A rather interesting approach to deal with the man power advatage the Warsaw Pact had over NATO. :hmm:

In the same way that Britain makes cars Germany makes guns. Heckler and Koch are part of Royal Ordnance and therefore British not German.

I don't know much about German guns. So I'd say America. The M1-Garand, Thompson sub-machinegun, and M-16 come to mind.

The M1 definitely sweet, but I would opt for the Browning Automatic Rifle, WWII Era. The Soviet-made AK47s stick out. Chinese and others' models are sometimes flawed. I have`nt readm much about Israeli and other Euro-arms, but they look ugly as hell, some of them. If I had to choose one model to say it was the best and most influential of it`s time:

Henry Repeating Rifle (Civil War Era, US-made)
or if you must rule out the pre-WWII era when real
breakthroughs were made...Soviet-made AK47

Im pretty sure that the B.A.R was introduced in world war 1 but it didnt gain popularity until WW2

Originally posted by Cunobelin
Im pretty sure that the B.A.R was introduced in world war 1 but it didnt gain popularity until WW2

Correct, but it was primarily a weapon of WWII. The USA only got into the fight at the end of WWI and very few BARs made it into serious combat.