Demise of the Rifle

[Ozz]

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.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

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.

 

[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...

 

[Ozz]

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.

 

[Ozz]

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...

Pointly Sticks

 

[PinkyGen]

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...

Longbows?

 

[Crimson Sunrise]

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

Rubber bands?

 

[History Guy]

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

 

[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
.
:scout:

 

[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.

 

[Ozz]

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.

 

[Crimson Sunrise]

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

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

 

[Sabotage]

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
.
: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?

 

[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 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.

 

[Globber]

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

 

[allhailIndia]

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 :ak47::ripper: :rocket: :rocket2: :rocket3:

 

[Simon Darkshade]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ozz]

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.

 

[Rodgers]

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