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.

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

It's pretty crazy.

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

Yeah, that's true. But the AK-47 is a light weapon for one that fires a round that size, as I understand it. It's just that assault rifles typically fire much lighter rounds.

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.

And I'm saying that given no specific criteria ('what assault rifle would you most like to use?' 'what rifle would you outfit a modern army with?') then you've just got to figure out a way to scale all those factors against each other. I mean, the modularity of a SCAR is cool, but how valuable is it in real world military terms. Best way to do that is to look at what rifle is meeting the needs of the market, what weapon is being picked up above all the others.

When most of the market are warlords and revolutionaries then you're looking at equipping marginally trained troops with few resources. So they don't care about accuracy at range, they care about cost and reliability. That means the AK-47.

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

Chrysler priced the Sherman at roughly 34,000 USD per unit, so it cost a little over half as much as the Tiger II. The T-34, easily the best tank to be involved in the conflict, cost roughly 60,000 USD when correcting for the intentionally distorted exchange rate.

The cost of differing types of platforms has not scaled in a linear fashion since WWII. Aircraft have grown much more complicated over time, whereas tanks and the like have seen little in the way of technical improvements, and even that has been confined primarily to detection packages and armor.

To put it another way: a WWII mechanic could look at a modern MBT and at least identify the majority of the parts. The same is not true of the same mechanic looking at the guts of an F-22.

One interesting fact I stumbled on while going through my notes: the M1 Garand cost roughly 80 USD, the MP44 cost roughly 25 USD once the price is controlled for retooling costs.

I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.

I think lack of context in what makes the rifle 'best' makes this topic kind of moot.

If its a 'you can only have one' , I'd go for an M4 with a 6.8mm Rem upper(HK 416 in 6.8 would be ideal, but they dont make it yet).


If its a best AR for the cost, Im going to get a case of AK's. Being able to arm 6-10 guys for the same cost of a Western military issue rifle, its easy to see who will be able to put more lead in the air(since we're talking about the guns- not the training).

Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.

I'm a newb when it comes to guns. I put my vote down for the AK 47. I saw a show/documentary once about it and thought it was neato. I prefer it in L4D2 and most other games where it is available.

[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.

With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.

It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.

Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.

It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.

With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.

It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.

Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.

It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.

I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.

And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil? Or is that something the lil rumble pack controllers arent able to translate well?

Let me start off by saying the OP didn't list a single Assault Rifle\Weapon according to the National Firearms Act in the United States. For those of you who point out that it has expired you are correct and I am only using it as a referance, if you could post a differant legal definition where these firearms are listed as Assault Rifles and not machineguns I will withdraw my statement. Everything listed above is a machinegun. EDIT: I'm not doing this to nit-pick but rather to express my experiance in this matter and distinguish my self from the dozens of those who don't know what they are talking about.

Speaking of Arm Chair Marines (I like that ShumaGorath, I'll be using it more in the future) you can tell the OPs experiance with firearms. Who would list the 50+ yr old AK-47 vs the modern firearms there? The 107\108 is a credit to the AK family and would stand up to the other listings in my opinion especially because it's a composite body and uses 5.56 NATO rounds therefore countering that hangups about its weight. They have also done a pretty good job of eliminating that little issue with slamfire, there is nothing like going to a range and ten seconds later EVERYBODY HATES YOU because your rifle malfunctioned.

@Mistress of Minis: The added weight really only helps the recoil when you have something to mount it against\on and even then it only matters when you're firing on full auto which at a firing range you would never do. But I loved your rant about the Xbox jockies! That was golden!

I'm a little bothered that no shotguns are listed. Now for those of you who have read that and immediatly thought "Errr the poll is fer Assault Rifles not shot guns" I will direct your attention to the NFA to see that in fact some shotguns can be classified as Assault Weapons which is the closest thing to a definition of an Assault Rifle that there is. For those of you who are interested but don't want to do the research a Shotgun is classified as an Assault Weapon if it is semi-automatic and has any combination of two of the following characteristics: a pistol grip, has a FIXED magazine with a capacity of more then five rounds, has the ability to except any detachable magazine, has a detachable or folding stock, A flash supressor built in or if it has a threaded barrel capable of excepting a flash suppressor.

As for my experiance, I am a civilian, I grew up around firearms they probably are what kick started my interest in mechanical engineering as a hobby and I'm activley studying for my FFL.

It's a poll about assault rifles, which are a standard military weapon used around the world since the 1940s.

A poll about weapons classed under the NFA as assault weapons will be of no interest to users outside the USA.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a poll about assault rifles, which are a standard military weapon used around the world since the 1940s.

A poll about weapons classed under the NFA as assault weapons will be of no interest to users outside the USA.

Agreed. An appropriate definition is the key. Assault rifles have a legal definition, shootng defiitions, it can be lots of things, as well as "best".

A BAR is an assualt rifle because it was meant to carried by one man in shot with rapidity at distances greater than a submachine gun, just as the M44, the AK 47 and M16. But its the same definition as a Henry repeater and Spencer carbine of the mid 1800s, or short bow for that matter. Under most definitions, its really just a carbine.

Frankly forget all that. As mentioned get a Tommy gun. They aren't assault rifles, but they ROCK HARD. Nothing says I love you like seeing your wife's face after she empties a fifty round drum full auto at a bunch of now very dead cans.

I rest my case.

@Frazzled: Agreed but then to sit there and reload the drum, unless you have some trick you'd like to share takes more effort then it's worth.

As I said before the nit-picking was to distiguish myself from the others on here who seem to get their credibility and information stricktley from Video Games. Sorry for the de-rail

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-Watt range.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Everything listed above is a machinegun. EDIT: I'm not doing this to nit-pick but rather to express my experiance in this matter and distinguish my self from the dozens of those who don't know what they are talking about.

I really could say something about how incorrect this is... But I'll be merciful for now.

Back on topic:

"An assault rifle is loosely defined as a selective fire rifle designed for combat that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (From Wikipedia.)

For a full definition you would need to define rifle and intermediate cartridge.

The intermediate cartridge is the important thing. It is a cartridge intermediate in power between a pistol cartridge as used in sub-machine guns and the full power rifle round of the early 20th century.

The cartridge is thought to be ideal for firefights at ranges up to about 300 metres, which covers 90% of WW2 infantry combat.

It could be argued that the M1 Carbine was the first example of this type of rifle to go into service.

Mistress of minis wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

[/I think its funny someone is whining about how heavy an AK-47 is....they weigh like 1 whole lb more than most of the other rifles listed, and is even a half lb lighter than the G3.

With a full magazine it weighs 10.5 pounds, the M4 weighs 7 in the same conditions. FAMAS weighs 8. G36 Weighs between 6 and 8. The steyer aug weighs just over 7. The xm8 fishgun drifts between 5.5 and 8. The SCAR drifts between 7 and 8. Etc.

It's not much heavier than the G3 but then no one with a choice uses that anymore either. It perplexes me that people defend the heft of the weapon, it's not exactly up for debate.

Im still amused though- that when firearms threads come up you can ALWAYS spot the guys that get their 'expertise' in firearms through FPS video games. Seriously, stop being clowns with that. Playing Rock Band well doesnt make you Bonno, and Grand Tourismo doesnt make you Dale Earnhardt.

It's just as easy to spot the armchair marines too.

I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.

And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil? Or is that something the lil rumble pack controllers arent able to translate well?

I guess the weight difference would be unoticable to someone that only knows the confines of a kitchen.

Enough jokes, you might think that so little weight doesn't matter.
But in the field, with little food, and little sleep it will matter. If it's life or death, or just redundant, who knows.

ComputerGeek01 wrote:Let me start off by saying the OP didn't list a single Assault Rifle\Weapon according to the National Firearms Act in the United States.

The NFA is a civilian law aimed at controlling what weapons we have access too- it has little to do with practical weapon definitions as its a politically derived set of statutes. Politicians dont know much about firearms, and it often shows in the laws.

A simple break down of weapon terminology:

Sub-machine gun- a machine gun that fires 'sub' (meaning smller in this case) sized ammunition compared to a full size machine gun. This is most often a pistol caliber. They are generally only effective at maximum 50-100 yards.

Battle Rifle- A semi automatic or select fire rifle firing a full sized rifle round that had previously been of the size chambered in bolt action rifles. Initially they had the concept of also functioning as light squad automatic weapons- but they didnt have enough weight to off set the recoil of fully automatic fire. The first example of an actual battle rifle is the M1 Garand- while not full auto or burst capable it was the first semi auto rifle issued in any quantity and tested by years of actual combat. The full size rifle rounds could be effective past 400 yards in the hands of a trained rifleman.

Assault rifle- a semi automatic or select fire rifle firing an intermediate size rifle cartridge(intermediate generally being smaller than 7mm and a case length of less than 50mm). The lighter ammunition allowed greater control during rapid fire as the recoil impulse is up to 75% less than many battle rifles. Being of a generally smaller size(less barrel length is needed for the smaller cartridges to achieve peak velocity compared to a battle rifle) theyre favored for urban and dense terrain where the medium range of engagements would negate the long range advantage of a battle rifle. Another concept of smaller caliber assault rifles like the 5.56mm, is the wounding vs killing aspect. If you wond someone, in theory his buddies will save him and drag him back- thus applying a logistical strain on the opposing army. Thats never really worked for us, guerilla warfare wasnt the predicted combat model

Then we get into actual machine guns. A general definition to seperate them from battle/assault rifles, is the duration of sustained fire the weapon can handle and a higher rate of full auto fire. Thicker barrels than thier rifle counterparts let them keep firing when a rifles barrel would have overheated, and some designs have barrels that can be swapped out but most modern desgins are cooled more effectively and don't need this.

Light machine guns fire the same ammo as most assault rifles, and some are beefed up versions of these rifles- sometimes just swapping out a barrel/receiver assembly like with the Steyr Aug. Medium machine guns, fire the same calibers as most battle rifles, 7.62 being the norm. They are generally purpose built as machine guns, with only a few designs being similar to battle rifles(a few G3 variants for example)- most mediums are operated by a single gunner, but the ammunition load is usually spread out amongst squad mates as belts of 7.62 can get heavy fast. Heavy machine guns, are crew served weapons- requiring 2 or more guys to hump the parts and set them up(or be mounted on a vehicle). The standard HMGs are the .50 cal and the soviet 14.5mm.

Generally machine guns are HEAVY, they usually weight twice as much as a rifle of the same caliber- or more if theres a tripod involved. The weight factor is why a weapon like the Browning 1918 (BAR) is never considered an assault rifle- it weighs damn near 20 lbs. Add in a bandoleer of 30.06 magazines, and it takes a pretty beefy dude to hump that effectively.

So- assault rifles are the 'just right' niche between the 'too small' SMG, and the 'too big/heavy' battle rifles. Actual machine guns are pretty much a separate category altogether.

The term "best" assault rifle is too general to get an accurate answer.

My vote went for AK-47, Its got a long service life, it's dirt cheap both to make and to trade/buy, its easy to operate, and easier to keep clean and oiled.

Just watch lord of war it'll tell ya all about it lmao

Very nice new muzzle break/flash suppressor for assault rifles. This video shows it on an AR15.

Mistress of minis wrote:
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.

Its more than 25% heavier than an M4. That's a very significant weight difference.

Mistress of minis wrote:
And, in your infinite wisdom, you do realize the weight is all steel and part of its ruggedness- and makes it more controllable under recoil?

Mass itself is not a direct control on recoil. It depends entirely upon where the it is located along the length of the weapon, and how it relates to the position of the rear grip. The AK is massive through the front of the receiver, and is particularly top heavy; meaning that the majority of its mass is placed above the pistol grip. As such, when its fired, all that extra weight is simply more energy transferred over the hand; disproportionately increasing recoil on shots after the first.

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.

Well said, Kingcracker.

I what to thank my fellow dakka members for restoring my faith in humanity You lot would probably blast the dove of peace out of the air with your assault rifles.

As for the AK47 what is there to celebrate. A weapon that has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands. I'll drink to that.

Seems to be a lot of crypto-fascism on this site these days. What happened to the old dakka? The golden age.

I'd take an AA12. Sure it's not a rifle and so suffers from range but who wouldn't want a 12ga shotgun that can put 300 rounds into a target in 60 seconds?

dogma wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:
I guess the weight difference would be huge to someone that only knows the heft of an Xbox controller.

Its more than 25% heavier than an M4. That's a very significant weight difference.

If you're going to stand by and act like 2-3 lbs is a huge difference- lets look at the other weight factors involved.

Whats the weight of the body armor of the AK47 wielder? What, none?

Are they carrying a combat load of ammo? Nope, maybe a couple mags.

So, the gun might be a whopping 2-3 lbs heavier, but theyre carrying 15-30 less lbs of other gear. And you're also comparing it to a bare bones M4(which is also technically a carbine), start sliding toys onto an M4 and it gets heavier too.

The AK47 has killed more people than any other single firearm in history, and will keep on doing that for the forseeable future. And as Frazz pointed out, even 10 year old malnourished african kids and 115 lb asian guys have used them effectively. So the weight factor doesnt seem to be holding them back.

I like M4's/Ar-15s, Ive built more than a few and had alot of fun with them. But having trained shooters too, the AK is just simpler to learn, more forgiving in terms of maintnance and will preform to the skill level of the average untrained shooter for alot less $$$ than the other options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I'd take an AA12. Sure it's not a rifle and so suffers from range but who wouldn't want a 12ga shotgun that can put 300 rounds into a target in 60 seconds?

The poor schmuck carrying, or paying for that ammo

Hmm, I voted for the AK, but it was a close thing for me. I've never fired one, but I have qualified expert with the M16.

Ruckdog wrote:Hmm, I voted for the AK, but it was a close thing for me. I've never fired one, but I have qualified expert with the M16.

Ive only put around eight to nine thousand rounds through a couple AK's, vs somewhere around fifteen thousand on AR's(tax deductible training ammo! ). Ak's push you around a bit more since the bullet has more mass, and its not a target rifle. Main difference between them, is an AK will punch though just about any part of an autobody thats not axle or engine block, defeats light block walls, and the steel core stuff does pretty decent against light armor or for disabling vehicles. Most AK's are only mechanically capable of a group about twice the size of an M-16. Some of the eastern European ones are actually very well made and get much better groups, conversely, some of the worn out shoddy stamped ones are more like an ork shoota

Even with the heavier ss109 replacing the 55gr ball, a 5.56 doesnt do nearly as well for any of that. But, it does do better against body armor(which ironically most of the guys getting shot at by m4/m16's dont have any....).

Mistress of minis wrote:
If you're going to stand by and act like 2-3 lbs is a huge difference- lets look at the other weight factors involved.

I was a personal trainer for 4 years, and I currently operate my own training business in addition to managing a gym. I know a great deal about weight, and how the human body supports it in the course of movement. 2-3 pounds may not seem like much, but I would challenge you to hold a 5 pound weight at full arm extension, and then do the same thing with an 8 pound weight. You will notice the difference, as it is considerable.

Mistress of minis wrote:
Whats the weight of the body armor of the AK47 wielder? What, none?

Are they carrying a combat load of ammo? Nope, maybe a couple mags.

That weight isn't relevant to the question. You do not hold magazines while firing a weapon, nor do you hold body armor while in a fire fight. You carry them on your person, which is altogether different when considering operator fatigue.

Mistress of minis wrote:
So, the gun might be a whopping 2-3 lbs heavier, but theyre carrying 15-30 less lbs of other gear.

Again, that's not relevant to the weight of the weapon. We are comparing firearms, not firearms and likely operators.

Mistress of minis wrote:
And you're also comparing it to a bare bones M4(which is also technically a carbine), start sliding toys onto an M4 and it gets heavier too.

Yes, and if you mount additional equipment to an AK-47 it also gets heavier. We're comparing firearms, not firearms with accessories.

Mistress of minis wrote:
The AK47 has killed more people than any other single firearm in history, and will keep on doing that for the forseeable future.

That's debatable, as I doubt there is any statistical evidence to support your claim.

Mistress of minis wrote:
And as Frazz pointed out, even 10 year old malnourished african kids and 115 lb asian guys have used them effectively. So the weight factor doesnt seem to be holding them back.

I don't know what version of history you have read, but I think you would struggle to find effective combatants in either of those groups. Child soldiers are not, and never have been especially useful against anything beyond unarmed opponents, and the Vietcong (I assume this is who you are referring to) were not noted to be particularly talented soldiers. Moreover, simply because certain movements involving 115 pound Asian men were successful does not imply that the 115 pound Asian men who were part of the movement were particularly effective when wielding an AK-47.

Mistress of minis wrote:
I like M4's/Ar-15s, Ive built more than a few and had alot of fun with them. But having trained shooters too, the AK is just simpler to learn, more forgiving in terms of maintnance and will preform to the skill level of the average untrained shooter for alot less $$$ than the other options.

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the AK-47 is heavy.

So the AK looses simply because its heavier? Thats border line stupid.

I see where your coming from with not comparing the weight of the carried gear and whatnot as I agree with that. I used to power lift and totally agree that weight on your person is a huge difference then what your arms are throwing around.

But in saying that, just saying that the weight is what makes it lose is just dumb. Infact saying that it looses out over the others because most the combatants that use them are under trained starving men and children is also stupid. We are talking about the WEAPON not all the other factors of how bad the untrained person shoots or how fast a super highly trained American force can take out a under trained starving child force from Africa.

The facts are very easy to find, the AK47 is easily one of the toughest, and easy to use weapons ever made. You have to realize that most of the AKs in service were made pre 1974 and are the very essence of friggin old. Take ANY of the other rifles from the list, beat the hell out of them, mis treat them, dont oil them up for months on end, OH and then lose them in a hay barn for a decade, and then see what one still works. Not only works, but still fires some what reliably and kills things. I will bet a years salary that it will be the AK47.

Again, since the topic is a bit vague, most people are defaulting to something that will always work not matter what. Which the ak47 WILL do. Also looking for statistics on how many MILLIONS the ak47 has killed is easy enough. Look up the history of ALL the countries that use the weapon, and see what the casualties were for the other side. Easily killed more people then any other gun in history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh heres a website with some info on it. And it says a guess of how many AK47s were built are around 90million. So 1 bullet from every rifle, you do the math

dogma wrote:

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

Chrysler priced the Sherman at roughly 34,000 USD per unit, so it cost a little over half as much as the Tiger II. The T-34, easily the best tank to be involved in the conflict, cost roughly 60,000 USD when correcting for the intentionally distorted exchange rate.

Then I'm going to have to raise an eyebrow at the source of your figures. German heavy tanks were infamous for the level of engineering, over-engineering that is, and the amount of machine hours needed to manufacture each one. Quoting a T-34 as costing almost as much as a Tiger II seems very odd to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It could be argued that the M1 Carbine was the first example of this type of rifle to go into service.

But that didn't have a select fire option until 1945, yeah?

Bla_Ze wrote:

I guess the weight difference would be unoticable to someone that only knows the confines of a kitchen.

Enough jokes, you might think that so little weight doesn't matter.
But in the field, with little food, and little sleep it will matter. If it's life or death, or just redundant, who knows.

Weight is important, but I didn't hear any stories of GI's dropping their guns because they were heavy. If the kit was heavy they would drop things wouldn't need first.

Plus, you get in close and club someone with 10 pounds you'll hit harder than 5-6 pounds. Now, weight means that the chances of fatigue will be higher, but I would gather that the adrenaline and survival instinct would balance it out(I haven't been in combat, but I could guess). Now when everything is over then it matters, however that's probably why they include slings on most weapons.

If I had a heavy weapon that could shoot with more accuracy and at a farther range than yours, you could only hope that the light weight lets you either run in closer or away before I can get a shot off( in real life I can't snipe and stuff, but in terms of example I am putting the marksmanship skills at the same level). Now, the AK-47 is inaccurate as nobody's business so...

KingCracker wrote:So the AK looses simply because its heavier? Thats border line stupid.

I didn't say the AK-47 is an inferior weapon. I said that its significantly heavier than most assault rifles.

KingCracker wrote:
Look up the history of ALL the countries that use the weapon, and see what the casualties were for the other side. Easily killed more people then any other gun in history.

That doesn't tell us how many people the AK-47 has killed, it only tells us how many people were killed in conflicts involving AK-47s. Moreover, we have to consider the older weapons in use during events like Communist Uprising in China before we can definitely say that the AK-47 has killed more people than any other gun.

KingCracker wrote:
Oh heres a website with some info on it. And it says a guess of how many AK47s were built are around 90million. So 1 bullet from every rifle, you do the math

I imagine that many of those weapons were never involved in a hostile conflict, let alone the death of another being.

Not to mention the fact that the 1 bullet may not actually hit its target.