Which Infantry Rifle and Machine Gun is Better?

An article on a military-related site on the Internet about the Americans changing some of the weapons used by their troops after the Afghanistan experience caught my attention. The Americans gave M4 rifles, a version of the M16 infantry rifle that fires 5.56 mm bullets, to the soldiers they sent to Afghanistan. However, after a while, they realized that these rifles were not very useful.

Colt M4 carbine

While American soldiers were operating in the field, they were usually under fire from 400-500 meters away from the Taliban or members of another organization. Since this distance was at the limits of the M4's effective range, soldiers could not use their weapons effectively. If they did not wear binoculars on the gun, they could not clearly see the people shooting at them.

For this reason, in order to be effective against this tactic of terrorists, the US army distributed M-14 EBR infantry rifles to its soldiers, which fire 7.62 mm diameter bullets and have an effective range of 800 meters.

M-14 EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle)

Since this weapon is also equipped with a scope, terrorists are prevented from using distance as a means of defense. This rifle, which has a longer range than the M-4, made it possible to easily see the enemy, to be effective at targets hiding behind obstacles in mountainous terrain with its larger diameter bullet, and to shoot accurately up to 800 meters.

When I read this, I remembered my teenage years. I was quite surprised when I was appointed as team commander and saw my team for the first time. Because when we look at the weapons of the personnel, they looked more like a paramilitary element that participated in the war with whatever weapon it found, rather than a regular army unit.

The team had G-3 infantry rifles with standard stock and mobile stock, AK-47 Kalashnikov infantry rifles with standard and mobile stock, AK-74 Kalashnikov infantry rifles, and even an old Diktriof (spelling may be wrong) infantry rifle, which you cannot even find in the Russian army today. Moreover, some of the Kelashnikovs were Russian and some were East German. Some of the stocks were made of wood and some were made of some kind of plastic.

We started our duty by saying that we would fight with whatever the government gave us. But soon the team was also given two M-16 A2 Carbine rifles. I bought one of these newly issued American rifles and gave the other to my assistant. Thus, an American weapon was added to the rifle variety.

This combination of rifles has some problems that we have also experienced. For example, if you enter into a conflict in a rocky or forested area, you may sometimes have doubts about whether the explosion sounds of the Kalashnikov rifle belong to your personnel or to the terrorists. But the biggest problem is that they all use different ammunition.

This makes it impossible for personnel whose ammunition is running out or running out during the conflict to receive ammunition from others. You also want several types of bullets when resupplying. Because G-3 and AK-47 fire 7.62 mm ammunition, but they cannot use each other's ammunition. AK-74 and M16 fire 5.56 mm ammunition, and they cannot use each other's ammunition.

Fortunately, they soon gave M-16 A2 Carbine infantry rifles to everyone in the team who carried an infantry rifle. But they didn't take the old rifles either. We kept these in the team chest. The same was true for machine guns.

Initially, they only had the Turkish-made MG-3 machine gun, but later they supplied the Russian-made PKM (known as Biksi), the American-made Minimi, and the South Korean-made K-3 machine gun (an unsafe weapon that can sometimes fire itself when the barrel is hot). The Biksi and MG-3 fire 7.62mm ammunition.

But like infantry rifles, they cannot use either each other's ammunition or the ammunition of infantry rifles that fire 7.62 mm bullets. For this reason, having many different weapons seems like a weakness at first glance. As a matter of fact, I thought so too at first. However, over time, I realized that there are places where each weapon can be used and that having different weapons is advantageous.

For example, while moving through a narrow valley or forest area; It was more advantageous to use the M-16 A2 as an infantry rifle and the K-3 or Minimi as a machine gun. The same was true when entering a house or cave. Because with these weapons, it was possible to quickly turn to the target and shoot quickly in narrow areas. It was also easier to provide fire pressure by firing from the hip with the Minimi when ambushed.

If you are going to blockade an area, that is, if you are going to stand still and shoot at the enemy coming towards you with high firepower, MG-3; It was more advantageous than others in terms of its range, high firing rate and the lethal effect of the bullet on the target. His deep voice also had a psychological effect on the enemy.

Biksi, which does not require much maintenance, was more suitable for operations where you would make long walks and have little opportunity to stay in the field for a long time and do maintenance. In accordance with these; We would go out into the field with whatever weapon was appropriate depending on the duration of the operation, the terrain and the enemy situation.

Therefore, whenever someone says to me; “Which infantry rifle or which machine gun is better?” I always respond with the following question: “Where, against whom, and for what purpose do you plan to use it?” Because each weapon has different features and the best weapon is the one used in accordance with its features.

Probably the Americans also understood this and made changes to the weapons. They have given up on the standard infantry rifle nonsense and learned that the rifle that best fits the need is the best rifle. War teaches the truth to every person who is a party to the war. If he insists on not learning, he continues to teach until he learns.

After all we have said, it is possible to say this in conclusion: Today, wars have become hybrid and battlefields have become mostly residential areas. After the residential areas, forests and swamps, mountainous lands and deserts come. For example, while the American army was fighting in the mountains in Afghanistan, it had to fight first in the deserts and then in populated areas in Iraq.

Since these terrains and the enemies they fought against were very different from each other, the Americans had to use different tactics and doctrines as well as different infantry rifles. This is also valid for the Russian army, which, while fighting in the mountainous terrain of Georgia in 2008, now has to fight in the dense forests and plowed fields of Ukraine, on a ground that has turned into a sea of mud due to heavy rainfall, and in many residential areas.

From these examples, it is understood that equipping armies with a single type of infantry rifle and machine gun as in the past is not sufficient to achieve success in today's battles. Armies must keep more than one type of infantry rifle and machine gun in their inventory, according to their own threat assessments and possible battle areas.