When does a rifle become obsolete???

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by Mark_Van_Goth, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. Mark_Van_Goth

    Mark_Van_Goth New Member

    455
    0
    0
    I have heard several time that a rifle is "obsolete".But in what occation it is really "too obsolete" to be used effectively on the field?

    I have heard it about the AK, the M14, the Fal, the G3 and even about the AR platform.I have never really understand it.The AK and AR platforms can be upgraded to such levels and performace that you cannot call them "Obsolete", since they both prooved to be extremely effective and reliable on the field.You cannot call the M14/FAL/G3 platform "obsolete", since they are (at least) still great marksman rifles and still they let you get the "job done" with success(If we don't take take in consideration they derivarives...like the M1A, the DSA FAL, the MP5, PSG1, etc.

    Is it only a matter of production costs, platform impossibility to be upgraded more than it has been upgraded till now or...something else?
     
  2. TLuker

    TLuker New Member

    3,937
    0
    0
    I think any of the modern rifles are only "obsolete" if you're trying to sell someone on a new rifle? :)
     

  3. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0
    Or when you are trying to convince your wife why you need a new one.
     
  4. Jagermeister

    Jagermeister New Member

    6,811
    0
    0
    The best machine in the World...MG42.....has been in military service for over 70 years in the Bundeswehr. Not a rifle, but it helps to prove a point.

    Some German troops prefer the G3 over the G36.

    The AK12 still only fires 600 rounds a minute and is not being adopted by the Russian military. Milled receiver AKs have better reliability and longevity then the stamped receivers. Lighter is not always better.
     
  5. Doc3402

    Doc3402 New Member

    2,823
    0
    0
    Any rifle that meets your needs is not obsolete for as long as you can still get ammo for it. Sure, there may be something that comes along that could meet your needs better, but if the old one still does the job it's not obsolete. The Ithaca single shot .22 lever action I had 50 years ago would still do the job when teaching other young people how to shoot.

    What many people mention when talking about something being obsolete is a performance or cost edge. In the case of a military weapon, does it give you an edge over your enemy? Will sticking with it give your enemy the edge? Is it too expensive to keep it in inventory? To us we're talking about the cost of one firearm. Imagine the cost to the military for all the firearms they have in use. For them even a dollar a month extra per rifle adds up to a pile of money, while it means next to nothing for us.
     
  6. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,341
    208
    63
    when you can no longer get ammo or parts, and your smith refuses to make any more parts.

    There are Trapdoor Springfields and muzzle loading flintlocks still in use. But .32 Long Rimfire ammo is getting REAL hard to find nowdays, along with 16 g pinfire shotgun shells, and .35 S&W Auto ammo.

    One of my .22 revolvers is so old it is marked .22 RF. Because it is older than the .22 LR cartridge. Obsolete? Hah! Shoots just fine with Shorts!

    However, if you have a Daisy VL 22 that shoots caseless ammo, you got a problem!
     
  7. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    When it is outclassed by the adversary or competition.

    Example: the Mosin. In some ways it was obsolete when it first went into production. The rimmed cartridge, the need for an "interrupter", the safety system, the bolt handle, the unattached "needle" bayonet were all behind the Enfield, Springfield, and Mauser.

    Then all bolt action rifles became obsolete as the main infantry rifles. But the Mosin has enjoyed the highest popularity among civilians because of its cheap price. So obsolete does not mean useless. It is more like retired from the original purpose.
     
  8. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    I will agree with C3, when replacement parts, ammo and magazines are no longer readily available, obsolete.
     
  9. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    1,634
    54
    48
    Obsolete: If you were given the weapons system free. Its weight, training requirement and maintenance requirement would not be worth the combat power you gain from it.

    Obsolescent: A rifles design is such that no major military would order it built like that nowadays, because for the same amount of resources you can get a more advanced weapons system.

    Examples:

    1)A WW1 battleship.. it is obsolete no navy would operate it ,even if give free, too many men, too much coal for very little combat power.
    A 1979 FFG7 Frigate: Its obsolescent but not obsolete as many Navies happily field existing stocks of FFG7.

    2) A musket. Its obsolete the combat power from it is not worth fielding it with a trained man
    A StGw 44: Obsolescent: Too expensive to make new for military use and lacking some modern features but some militias would happily use them if given for free. Serb and Iraq and others forces used them until very recently for reserve units.

    3) A 1980 Mercedes Benz 450 SEL. Obsolescent. No one would make and sell/buy this design at todays S Class prices as its room/features/speed are overmatched by much cheaper modern cars. But if you were given a free one or near free one in good shape, you would gladly use it.
    A 1900 Mercedes Benz. It is obsolete and outside of museum use no one would use it as daily driver since it does not work well enough to keep uo with modern traffic etc and takes a lot of maintenance etc

    So an early model AK, a G3 and M14 , a FN FAL are not obsolete, they are obsolescent.
    They will be obsolete when their combat power is not worth using when you already have them.
    In other words it will be a very long time because something much much more advanced personal firearm needs to be in general issue, maybe the self aiming over the wall shooting w/ advanced ammo rifles or some such are needed to make those listed rifles truly obsolete.

    people use the term "obsolete" way too freely in this country and often really mean "obsolescent".
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  10. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38
    In 1891, The M91 was actually cutting edge. The cartridge was designed by... are you ready.... Remington. The Czar wanted a cartridge that no other rifle could be modified easily to chamber. Beveled rim, not easy. Spike bayonets have been around since the 1500's. The last service rifle to use one was the M44, the No4 Enfield is just behind. Strait bolts were the norm on Military rifles in 1891 and well afterwards, M93, M95, and M98 (or GEW98) Mauser were the 1st to copy it. The Last was the FR8 Spanish 7.62x51. You need to get your facts strait. BTW, ask anyone that served in the middle east if they have seen Enfields, 91/30, etc.



    FR8
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  11. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    I can see that, as long as you exclude historic replicas, such as the Springfield M1A.

    So, to clarify. An M44 carbine, obsolete or obsolescent?
     
  12. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    1,634
    54
    48

    Thats a tough one,m it <is> a bolt action..
    but it <is> very cheap and does have quite a bit of utility..

    I'd say the proper classification might be obsolete for gov't but only obsolescent for civilians.
    The fact that so many civilians use it proves it is not obsolete but only obsolescent.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  13. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    OK, from the bottom up. Straight bolt handles were not the norm; all three rifles I mentioned in comparison had curved ones. The straight bolt on the Mosin was also short by necessity, which made clearing a jam more difficult.

    The Mosin bayonet made the rifle muzzle heavy and awkwardly long, but more importantly it was a separate unattached piece. The Mosins were sighted in mostly with the bayonets on, which complicated the accuracy with a "naked" muzzle. The spiked shape was not a big deal by itself. If i misled you to think so, my apologies.

    You correctly credited the Imperial Government with the flawed concept of their next battle rifle. Several American gunmakers were contracted by the Tsar at one time or another. All that does nothing to change the fact that the Mosin design was outdated, by comparison.

    About the Middle East. Yes, obsolete (or obsolescent?) weapons have been present there for a long time. I am not sure what else you want me to ask about.

    Finally, on handling the facts. We are on my territory. I am a vicious personality, and you may not love me, but in this section of History, you can take the facts from me to your memory bank. Over.
     
  14. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    IMO, it depends on the use of, and the organization or person using

    the rifle.

    here's a tale of two rifles:

    #1-An Izzy Mosin M44- in great shape, shiny barrel, great truck gun,

    still in use, a go to rifle for chasing wild boar, or whenever I want a

    tough carbine. It serves a purpose, is an important part of my system.

    So, it's not obsolete, in my perception.

    #2-A 1925 Hex Izzy 91/30- all matching serial #s, dark, but shoot-able bore,

    great piece of military history. (my guess, due to condition, is it was a

    guard's duty weapon, or it served on the Russian east coast during WWII)

    But, in my eyes it's obsolete, because, cool as it is, it's four feet

    long, I have no practical use for it. Hence, it's obsolete, in my view.


    These are two very similar rifles, made by the same factory, with the same

    design, materials, caliber, and overall type. One is "obsolete", one isn't,

    the way I see things...
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  15. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    Yep, it's all in the eyes of the shooter, in the end. But thanks, a good distinction to learn.
     
  16. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38

    Bud, you are not misleading me. You are quite incorrect as far as the Mauser, The 1903 Springfield that came out 12 years later (M91 Mosin Nagant) was a copy of the Mauser, so I'm tossing Copies as they have no bearing on an original design. The .303 Enfield was one of your choices, also a rimmed cartridge and oddly enough both use a .311..312 bullet. The No4 enfield also use a spike bayonet that was not attached to the rifle, but was afixed in the same fashion as the M91. The Mauser had a strait bolt. It was not until the K98a that a curved bolt was used.
    The M95's that were fielded in Cuba at San Juan hill had strait bolts, They all did. The M93, and M98 or as I stated GEW98 had strait bolts. The VZ24 Mauser was a strait bolt, M24 Yugo was a strait bolt, M24/47 was a strait bolt. Your reaching for something, but are wrong in every respect. Since this Rifle was fielded in 1891, it was cutting edge. By 1920, it was not the top of he heap, but still a dangerous weapon in the right hands. One reason accuracy s@cks is it was never designed for a 147gr bullet, but the Soviets chasing the Germans decided on that weight bullet because that is what the Germans used. It is a very accurate platform using 180gr and above. The cartridge is also tapered, so with brass ammo it is next to impossible to have a jam. While the Russians were shooting smokeless powder, the U.S. was using black powder. Look at Cuba again. Strait handled 1893 Mausers. When The Boers kicked the snot out of the Brits it was with strait bolt 7x57 M 1893 Mausers. They out ranged the Brits by 200 yards.
     
  17. Mercator

    Mercator Active Member

    True about the rim on 303 but it didn't matter, because the Enfield did not need the interrupter. That part broke more often than anything except maybe the mag. The Chief dept of Artillery even blamed Remington for their poor quality.

    You are correct on the early Mauser straight bolt, and I was not. But this is a difference without distinction. the Mosin bolt was the hardest to operate, regardless. It was straight and short. The leverage was worse if a jam had to be cleared. The handle was inadequate for the bolt system. To lock a Mosin action, you have to slam the bolt handle. In a Mauser, straight or curved, not nearly as much effort.

    You seem to be well read, and I just can't see how you stick to the cutting edge label on the Mosin. At least you don't contest the bolt safety. The long removable bayonet was practically impossible to holster, and awkward to haul around otherwise. The trigger was and remains the worst, with your eyes closed. The Russians themselves have long since admitted as much. At least we are clear on who says what.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2014
  18. MisterMcCool

    MisterMcCool Well-Known Member Supporter

    12,823
    132
    63
    When it is damaged beyond repair.



    no offense and none taken
     
  19. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    In the US and other highly developed countries bolt action rifles are obsolete to the military. They have no illiterate soldiers that cannot be trained to service and shoot full auto rifles. Take Afghanistan, they have been at war for 25 years. The Afghan education system is for those who can afford to pay for a private education Soldiers are recruited as soon as they are able to tote a rifle. Bolt actions like the 91/30 that can be purchased at scrap metal prices are highly useful. The soldier carrying the 91/30 is of very little value. If he kills an enemy soldier with the 91/30 they have broke even. If he happens to kill several they hit the jackpot. If he does nothing but make the enemy waste ammo they still are ahead of the game. He doesn't have to be paid, fed or given medical attention.
     
  20. jpattersonnh

    jpattersonnh Active Member

    5,360
    3
    38
    OK, let me make it simple for you. The M91 is a strait stack loaded from above. You can not have lips on the mag well as you would not be able to load it. So what makes you an expert on any pre 1900 firearm? The case of a 7.62x54r was brass, tappered. No issue with extraction. I own both M93, M94, M95, M96, and M98 Mausers, but also own quite a few Mosin Nagants. I can't see how any Russian agency found Remington at fault since the design was not developed by them. I'm not well read, I own and shoot them. I realize your years maybe excede my limited 30 years with these firearms, but I'll still cal BS when I see it on the web. Here are a few, not all, but a few. All but two are either Mauser or Mosin Nagant.
    [​IMG]