Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Generalstoner wrote:I voted the AK. It is more than just history and functionality that makes it the best AR of all time. The fact that in some countries you can buy one for $25 american is just insane.

This is very true. In some countries, an AK-47 is worth LESS than a Live Chicken. Hahaha.

-------------------

I see some saying the SCAR Rifle without specifying what type it is, shows how much they know about guns.

My personal favorite is the FN H-SCAR with the FN-GL40mm equipped, in the Long Barrel variant.

Provides a good, heavy rifle, along with a Grenade Launcher, without the cumbersomeness of a light machine gun.

Edit: Oh, and its classed as BATTLE RIFLE so it automatically wins.

ShumaGorath wrote:Doesn't help that the AK is stupidly front heavy (and heavy in general). My upper body isn't terrible and after two magazines (single firing) I was getting tired in the forearms.

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I'm sorry, but if you have the MP 44 up on the poll and no BAR listed something's going on.

Personally I would put the Thompson Gun up there, but as it is not a choice I got to go with the AK-47. Large caliber, works in all conditions, heavy enough to be a club, and mass produced.

Of course a running joke with the AK-47 is that you would be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn, from the inside.

Poor accuracy at long ranges is a drawback because if you can't get effective range, it's just not effective.

Although the whole "gun x works if mud is packed in" depends on luck. You can pack an AK-47 full of mud and have it fire or not.

If you want a proper rifle, You're going 7.62 NATO route (FN/M1A or similar). I'd definitely take that first. Spray and pray is irrelevant if Bob from accounting can drill you at 600 yards. I've met Bob. You don't feth with Bob, but he's my kind of guy. He's got issues...

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.

This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.

This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.

Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: as noted the titel is best assault rifle, not best assault rifle a trained special forces operative would use. All around AK is the bomb. Its not what I'd prefer to have (see FN/M1a statements although I really really really like a Fulton Titan). The AK is something your average tribesman who just learned about that whole fire thing can use, all the way up to your flabbie armed Milwaukee City Council member who is convinced Arizona doesn't border Mexico.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.

This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.

Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!

My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.

This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.

Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!

My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.

Ill have you know my biceps were built buy years of rum glass curls! Again you didn't say it was for you.
Its good for 50 yards and thats all you're really using it for.
In light of the countries taken over by guys with AK's I'd say its done pretty damn good.

There are three bests.

1. AK47. Anything but the best in terms of quality, but in terms of application it is superb.

2. MP44. The ancestor all other designs spring from, whan you improve on this design you pay homage to it by your actions.

3. G11. Because it is the best in terms of technical performance, no question. I am suprised it wasnt given as a voting answer.

I cannot actually vote because depending on what answer I want to give any of those three count as 'best'.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Its not my fault you don't have the strength of an oppressed underfed Vietnamese villager.
AK's are light, extremely rugged, and actually decent if you've have any training on how to actually shoot.

This leads me to believe that you've never held one before. The AK is one of the heaviest if not the heaviest assault rifle remaining in service on the planet.

Then you're be as ignorant as you're wrong.
They're about the same weight as an SKS. They're light relative to .308s and real rifles. Again, if Charlie in the trees can carry one, if 8 year old child soldiers in the African bush can hang, you should be able to. You're never going to make it when the revolution comes if you can't tote a proper AK Shuma. Time to do some push ups!

My biceps put your wet noodles to shame, doesn't mean I want to go to war with a weapon that has very little compensation for it's recoil in the design mixed with a high weight that makes consistent centering difficult. That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids. The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime. The soviets don't even use it any more.

Well duh, the soviets disbanded a while back? Miss the headlines did ya?

Russia however, uses a lot of modernized versions of it. AN-94, AEK-971 and AK-107 are some examples.

I'm still in love with the G3 though..

The venerable BAR was exhibited tfor military trials in 1917 and was designed by Warmaster Uber Alles Mr. Browning as an automatic rifle to be fired while advancing. It beat the MP44 by absolute decades. I've shot one I don't see how you'd do that, its a heavy SOB and I felt all my teeth rattling when I fired bursts.

M14 and M2/3 carbines came from the Garand design. The original M1 carbine which was tweeked for auto came before the MP44.

AK 47 came independently (thats what he kept insisting anyway). Since the Rooskies had been building submachine guns known for similar ruggedness over accuracy by the gazillion I'd believe Kali baby unless someone shows the specs otherwise.

I'm not sure about the original Armalite. He was an aircraft guy not a German design lover, but I'll definitely bow to others with more experience there.

Shuma your current ignorance exceeds even your esteemed capacity, please take a knowledge break.

ShumaGorath wrote:
That vietnamese villager couldn't handle the AK either, nor can those kids.

You fail to understand, the AK47 is a peasant weapon, its designed to be handed out free to people with no weapons training and to be simple enough that they cannot really fail to use it. Consequently they didnt.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The guns a symbol of ineffectuality in wartime.

The AK47 is on three national flags. It is anything but ineffectual as a symbol or as a weapon.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The soviets don't even use it any more.

Which present tense Soviets are you talking about? It you are talking about the Russians or even the old 80's Soviets they used the AK74. The AK47 is an export weapon perfect for revolutionary warfare, and conscript hordes. It is not the weapon of a professional army, nor does it need to be. Even so the AK74 is just a redesigned AK47 with a 5.56 round.

I didn't want to get in to this argument but I think that there is a valid point to be made about the AK being heavy. I know a Vietnam vet, army airborne, who had discussed that. This is of course, an individual who had individual experiences that might not represent everyone, but he was there.

His claim concerning the AK is that the NVA had a nasty, for them, tendency to sling the rifle over their shoulders and rest their arms on it while marching, because ( his opinion) of the weight of the weapon. His belief is that often times put them at a disadvantage because when they ran into patrols they'd have to take the time to get that weapon off of their backs. Of course, he was the guy that carried the M60 when he first got there and never had a problem, so it might have been a discipline problem on the part of the NVA. He carried an AK part of the time he was there and a variety of other weird crap. I thought they told you what to carry, but either I'm wrong or he just didn't care and carried what he wanted to.

I asked him about mechanical problems with the M-16 rifle to which he said that by the time he was there they had "ironed out" those problems. His belief is that the problems with the M-16, which he felt got American soldiers killed, were due to changes in the original design to reduce the cost of the rifle. He has unflattering things to say about those he felt responsible for those changes. Regardless, he thought it was a great rifle by the time he got there. I don't recall the exact dates he was there but I know he was there during the Tet, and that he was at Hue when the fighting was going on there. They were able to carry a couple hundred rounds for the M-16 without much trouble, and he said that he couldn't imagine many things he'd less like to get shot with because apparently that bullet has a nasty tendency to yaw and tumble when it hits someone.

The root cause of the early M16's problems was due to Army insistance of the use of a particular powder in the ammunition. This ammo shot dirtier than would have been the case.

ZF-

I love how these posts ALWAYS pull out the guys that have to stick in the fact that they are "experts" in what ever type of weapon the thread is about. Not only that, but rather then enjoy the thread, they belittle the others that are just adding their opinion.

Remember what they say about peoples opinions folks.


Saying that though, I too voted the AK. I know its older then dirt and is getting pretty dated. But lets be realistic, its a gun that was simply built perfectly. Sure others could shoot father, more accurate, bigger bullets and what not, buts it the AK47 for goodness sake. There have been stories of them being run over, and the barrels bent back in place with rocks. The Vietkong would dig holes in the ground and leave them their for months. You can literally stick a sock in gear greese, and use that to clean the barrel and it will still fire every single time.

Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?

KingCracker wrote:I love how these posts ALWAYS pull out the guys that have to stick in the fact that they are "experts" in what ever type of weapon the thread is about. Not only that, but rather then enjoy the thread, they belittle the others that are just adding their opinion.

Remember what they say about peoples opinions folks.


Saying that though, I too voted the AK. I know its older then dirt and is getting pretty dated. But lets be realistic, its a gun that was simply built perfectly. Sure others could shoot father, more accurate, bigger bullets and what not, buts it the AK47 for goodness sake. There have been stories of them being run over, and the barrels bent back in place with rocks. The Vietkong would dig holes in the ground and leave them their for months. You can literally stick a sock in gear greese, and use that to clean the barrel and it will still fire every single time.

Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?

Hey I didn't say I was an expert! I do say Shuma has to do some pushups. Flap those arms boy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KingCracker wrote:

Id have to say as far as a "best" goes, something that you practically can not destroy, would win out every time. I look at it as, if I can only have one rifle in a zombie apocalypse, or real world apocalypse, would I want some flashy new rifle with bells and whistles....or one that wont break ever?

Exactly.

The thing is, the AK can break. Especially if you accidentally pick up a 74 instead of a 47.

A guy did the same testing with an AR-15 and it still worked even though everyone says they're hunks of junk and jam if a spec of dust gets in.

The thing about the BAR though, it had selective fire and didn't quite fit in. It's usually called a LMG, but can also be termed as an assault rifle with a bigger bang. It was durable as hell and clumsy, but it worked wonders.

I also don't care too much about the bullet being too stable. The kinetic energy behind the bullet itself would add some "oomf" to it and of course you have the fact that the guy who has been shot now has a hole in him.

As I said before and as Frazzled pointed out again, its inaccuracy lends it to be not the best. However, I put the positives as outweighing the negatives so it has my vote.

Also, heavy guns can be good. You run out of ammo and you have a club, the only thing I have right now that can be called an assault rifle is a chinese SKS and I haven't fired it yet, but plan to next week along with my Nagant. Weplan to shoot for an hour followed by a quick trip to the emergency room to fix a dislocated shoulder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

A little bit of humor.

Most of Nazi Germany's Weapons
Why?
Because they are the Granpappy of nearly every gun we know today.Nazi's were evil feths but they had advanced weaponry for their time.
(If I'm Incorrect then correct me but don't hate on a teenager who knows this because he saw a TV program)

The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.

MenOfTanith wrote:Most of Nazi Germany's Weapons
Why?
Because they are the Granpappy of nearly every gun we know today.Nazi's were evil feths but they had advanced weaponry for their time.
(If I'm Incorrect then correct me but don't hate on a teenager who knows this because he saw a TV program)

And most of their stuff came from Amuricans or Brits.

Maxim machine gun. We thunk it. yea, we're BAD. Amuricans, thinking of inventive ways for Europeans to kill each other with for 100 years.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.

Pss thats so last war. Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.

We had radar, B-25s, the truck, better ships, the ability to make more tanks than god, and the atom bomb.

...Thought this was Sci-fi related.

None of these, I like the Boltgun.

Shesh,freakin' gun-nuts

Samus_aran115 wrote:...Thought this was Sci-fi related.

None of these, I like the Boltgun.

Shesh,freakin' gun-nuts

Marine loving . Every good Imperor's Man knows the best assault rifle is a Husquevarna M117 lasrifle with accessorized battery pack bandolier. It even comes with flip out ork sticker. Be a man and choose a man's gun. Choose a Husquevarna.

Huskvarna

I'll vote for the assault rifle that shoots further than I can throw a well weighted rock, and hits harder. If that's not avaliable I'll take a plasma rifle in the 40 megawatt range, please.

I had no idea it had any name beyond "holy Bolter"!

Frazzled wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:...Thought this was Sci-fi related.

None of these, I like the Boltgun.

Shesh,freakin' gun-nuts

Marine loving . Every good Imperor's Man knows the best assault rifle is a Husquevarna M117 lasrifle with accessorized battery pack bandolier. It even comes with flip out ork sticker. Be a man and choose a man's gun. Choose a Husquevarna.

At first, this made me laugh. Then I realized how PISSED the Ork would be that was being stuck.....then I laughed at the violence that would ensue.


Also I didnt say the AK will never break, thats just silly talk. But in all honesty, the thing is damn near un breakable. Besides its been proven that the AR15, although very accurate and nice looking, will jam if you blink your eyes to much

Kilkrazy wrote:IMI Galil

Which one? South african or israeli?

Different bullets. xP

Frazzled wrote:They're light relative to .308s and real rifles.

So, its light relative to things which aren't assault rifles?

Frazzled wrote:
Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.

Once you factor in the cost of weapons the production cost of a Mustang (~60,000 USD) is roughly the same as the production cost of a Tiger II (~64,000 USD), and the Thunderbolt (~85,000 USD) is significantly more expensive.

halonachos wrote:The thing is, the AK can break. Especially if you accidentally pick up a 74 instead of a 47.

A guy did the same testing with an AR-15 and it still worked even though everyone says they're hunks of junk and jam if a spec of dust gets in.

The thing about the BAR though, it had selective fire and didn't quite fit in. It's usually called a LMG, but can also be termed as an assault rifle with a bigger bang. It was durable as hell and clumsy, but it worked wonders.

I also don't care too much about the bullet being too stable. The kinetic energy behind the bullet itself would add some "oomf" to it and of course you have the fact that the guy who has been shot now has a hole in him.

As I said before and as Frazzled pointed out again, its inaccuracy lends it to be not the best. However, I put the positives as outweighing the negatives so it has my vote.

Also, heavy guns can be good. You run out of ammo and you have a club, the only thing I have right now that can be called an assault rifle is a chinese SKS and I haven't fired it yet, but plan to next week along with my Nagant. Weplan to shoot for an hour followed by a quick trip to the emergency room to fix a dislocated shoulder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

A little bit of humor.

Speaking of Mosin Nagant, I saw an ad in the paper not too long ago for a Mosin Nagant, 89.95.

I wants it so badly.

Frazzled wrote:The venerable BAR was exhibited tfor military trials in 1917 and was designed by Warmaster Uber Alles Mr. Browning as an automatic rifle to be fired while advancing. It beat the MP44 by absolute decades. I've shot one I don't see how you'd do that, its a heavy SOB and I felt all my teeth rattling when I fired bursts.

Yeah, but again, because it fired a big ass bullet it belongs in the light machine gun category, yeah? I mean, the big idea of MP44 was the intermediate round, in combination with select fire, yeah?

M14 and M2/3 carbines came from the Garand design. The original M1 carbine which was tweeked for auto came before the MP44.

I didn't know there was an M1 carbine capable of full auto, select fire and everything. Cool. Just looked it up though and it was first put into production in 1945, after the MP44.

AK 47 came independently (thats what he kept insisting anyway). Since the Rooskies had been building submachine guns known for similar ruggedness over accuracy by the gazillion I'd believe Kali baby unless someone shows the specs otherwise.

I've been told the similarities between the MP44 and AK-47 aren't as great as assumed. It's mostly the banana clip that makes them look so similar. But I'm not a gun nut, or know all that much at all so it'd be cool if someone with some realy knowledge could confirm or deny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:The nazi's had amazing technology, its a good thing they didn't crack anti-gravity but they came close with their "flying-wing" programs. The germans were scientific masters when it came to warfare, the only thing that caused them to lose is the fact that they took forever to make anything.
Example: One TigerII tank knocked out around 15 JSII(russian heavy tank) before it became inoperable and got bogged down. At least I think it was 15, it might've been 50. I don't have the book I read it in with me so I can't readily check.

The willingness to dedicate hundreds of thousands of man hours into a supertank is less an example of super tech and more an example of a disfunctional strategic level design program. The Nazis were building Tigers at somewhere around a hundred thousand man hours per unit, and being swamped by T34s being cranked out at around a hundredth of that. Russian units would simply advance past the Tiger IIs, cut off lines of supply and force the Germans to scuttle their own tanks once they ran out of fuel.

It's a big part of why the Germans got beat, despite attacking Russia with the manufacturing power of pretty much all of of continental Europe behind them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Pss thats so last war. Who needs a hard to make Tiger II when a more cheaply made, epically more cool Mustang or Thunderbird can blow it to heck 5 times over with bombs and rockets.

We had radar, B-25s, the truck, better ships, the ability to make more tanks than god, and the atom bomb.

Yep. You also had weapon design priorities that made some kind of sense.

The Russians over ran a factory deep in Germany that was building a super bomber to hit New York. The Russians were just outside of Berlin, and the Nazis were still putting resources into building a super bomber to hit New York. Fascists. They be crazy.

But then 50 years later and the history channel spends half its time talking about the supertech of the nazis. Which does make for some cool tv, but it has to be put in the context of how completely bonkers crazy the Nazi war machine was.

Ill have you know my biceps were built buy years of rum glass curls! Again you didn't say it was for you.
Its good for 50 yards and thats all you're really using it for.
In light of the countries taken over by guys with AK's I'd say its done pretty damn good.

Cool. So the spear is the best assault rifle in history? More countries have been taken over by the spear than any other weapon.

Well duh, the soviets disbanded a while back? Miss the headlines did ya?

Russia however, uses a lot of modernized versions of it. AN-94, AEK-971 and AK-107 are some examples.

I'm still in love with the G3 though..

Those weapons are not the AK-47 and the soviet line was a joke.

Shuma your current ignorance exceeds even your esteemed capacity, please take a knowledge break.

I'll go do that but I think you'll be too busy building a golden idol of yourself to notice.

The AK47 is on three national flags. It is anything but ineffectual as a symbol or as a weapon.

I guess that explains why those countries have such good militaries with such wonderful track records for success. The level of adoption of the AK has little to do with anything but it's incredible prevalence and ease of access to it's ammunition. It was great forty years ago and passable 20. Its been replaced in every single country on the planet that can afford to do so.

Which present tense Soviets are you talking about? It you are talking about the Russians or even the old 80's Soviets they used the AK74. The AK47 is an export weapon perfect for revolutionary warfare, and conscript hordes. It is not the weapon of a professional army, nor does it need to be. Even so the AK74 is just a redesigned AK47 with a 5.56 round.

Soviet line was a joke. I meant russia. Any weapon with prevalence of ammunition and easily repaired and replaced parts is a "perfect" weapon for revolutionary warfare. The AK-47 is hindered in that role by it's full auto capacity (revolutionaries are usually terrible with conserving ammunition and firing correctly) and it's weight (They also don't do all those pushups fraz apparently does daily before it gets thrust into their hands). Also, if it's not the weapon for "A professional army" just what the hell are you disagreeing with me for? You didn't even argue against any of my points.

You're bad at this.

dogma wrote:Once you factor in the cost of weapons the production cost of a Mustang (~60,000 USD) is roughly the same as the production cost of a Tiger II (~64,000 USD), and the Thunderbolt (~85,000 USD) is significantly more expensive.

If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Cool. So the spear is the best assault rifle in history? More countries have been taken over by the spear than any other weapon.

No, it doesn't fire an intermediate round with select fire capability. But the spear is one of the greatest weapons of history, because a wide range of societies found it the best weapon to meet their military needs. The same criteria applies to the AK-47.

I guess that explains why those countries have such good militaries with such wonderful track records for success. The level of adoption of the AK has little to do with anything but it's incredible prevalence and ease of access to it's ammunition. It was great forty years ago and passable 20. Its been replaced in every single country on the planet that can afford to do so.

The point is that most countries do not have the finances and training facilities of the developed countries, and many fighters don't have any national support at all. The superior performance of other assault rifles is nice, but not that nice given the low level of training of their troops.

As you point out, most fighting forces cannot afford a weapon with better performace, nor would their minimally trained fighters be able to maintain such weapons. As such the low cost and reliability of the AK-47 becomes the key factor. As such, for a question as vague as "the best" assault rifle, the AK-47 is a pretty decent answer, given how many fighting forces find it the best weapon for their purposes.

If your tanks have equivalent production costs to top tier fighter aircraft something is very wrong.

Doesn't seem too strange to me. Avionics were much less advanced then and fighter aircraft were smaller and lighter than tanks.

No, it doesn't fire an intermediate round with select fire capability. But the spear is one of the greatest weapons of history, because a wide range of societies found it the best weapon to meet their military needs. The same criteria applies to the AK-47.

True, but neither do most of the examples fraz was using to prove that it wasn't a heavy gun.

As you point out, most fighting forces cannot afford a weapon with better performace, nor would their minimally trained fighters be able to maintain such weapons. As such the low cost and reliability of the AK-47 becomes the key factor. As such, for a question as vague as "the best" assault rifle, the AK-47 is a pretty decent answer, given how many fighting forces find it the best weapon for their purposes.

Yeah, I noted first page that without any sort of criterion for judging the "best" term is pretty empty. The AK-47 isn't the lightest, it isn't the most accurate, it isn't the most durable or reliable (there have been more reliable weapons developed, the poor track record of the m16 and it's predecessors do much to inflate the AK47s "superior" reliability), and it's certainly not the easiest to control. If prevalence and uptake in citizen militias or poor militaries implies superiority then it's definitely the best though.