View Full Version : "Battle rifles"
Littlelebowski
03-27-09, 10:28
I can't stand this term. How is an M4 not a battle rifle? Silly how many people on internet forums seem to have invented this term and apply it only to .308 rifles. Anyone else get tired of the term and its application/snobbery?
I can't stand this term. How is an M4 not a battle rifle? Silly how many people on internet forums seem to have invented this term and apply it only to .308 rifles. Anyone else get tired of the term and its application/snobbery?
I think the term comes about from the cartridge used. Classic examples of rifle cartridges are the .30-06, 8mm Mauser, and the 7.62x54mm and the platforms were often low capacity bolt actions or semi-auto with under 10rds. The rifle was a long ranged, heavy hitting infantry weapon. Then we get into the age of the G3, M14, and FAL with the 7.62 NATO which is still technically a "rifle cartridge". These weapons are still long ranged, heavy hitting infantry weapons.......but they have the capability to also be used more effectively in place of an assault rifle. So, they are not necessarily "rifles", but are improved rifles for a more dynamic combat environment.......so, we get "Battle Rifles".
The M4 is more of a battle carbine. Its cartridge limits its terminal effects at long range, and its ability to punch through housing materials such as cinder blocks. So, in terms of combat use, it is definately not in the same category as a .308. That being said, would I want to hump around all day for a month carrying a .308 and 200rds of ammunition in addition to all my other equipment.......hell no. There's a reason why all of the major military players around the world use calibers smaller than 6mm for the primary infantry weapons.
stanlyonjr
03-27-09, 10:51
308 has always been synonymous with "battle rifle" as 5.56 has always been synonymous with "assault rifle". Battle rifles have always been defined as firing a bullet weight of 147gr or greater. Assault rifle was a translation from the German word "Sturmgewehr" which means storm rifle. The word was coin by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44 which was renamed the Sturmgewehr 44 and was generally considered the first assault rifle. Probably more information than you wanted. Either word does not bother me at all. Its people that use the words incorrectly that do. Smile its Friday:D
Littlelebowski
03-27-09, 10:57
308 has always been synonymous with "battle rifle" as 5.56 has always been synonymous with "assault rifle". Battle rifles have always been defined as firing a bullet weight of 147gr or greater. Assault rifle was a translation from the German word "Sturmgewehr" which means storm rifle. The word was coin by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44 which was renamed the Sturmgewehr 44 and was generally considered the first assault rifle. Probably more information than you wanted. Either word does not bother me at all. Its people that use the words incorrectly that do. Smile its Friday:D
Good knowledge, thanks man.
The question i have is if the people saying that have ever even been in battle. I know from my own experience, 2 deployments to Fallujah and I don't mean the wounderful base 10 miles outside of the city I mean living in that shitty city. That the M4 is a great battle weapon.
Battle Rifle = FAL/M14 full sized rifle with a full power cartridge
Assault Rifle = M16 Rifle full sized rifle with a intermediate power cartridge
Assault Carbine = M4 Carbine a short(er) assault rifle
A couple of decent definition that I agree with.
A Battle Rifle or Main Battle Rifle is a full-size select fire rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. 'High power', in this instance, refers to a combination of velocity and bullet weight; these cartridges commonly employ bullet weights of at least 147 grains (9.5 g) and velocities in excess of 2,600 feet per second (790 m/s). The term battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II selective-fire infantry service rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL, the ArmaLite AR-10, or the American M14.
In contrast, so-called Assault Rifles fire smaller, intermediate-size cartridges and bullets such as the 5.56x45mm NATO round used in the M16, or the Russian moderate-velocity 7.62x39mm cartridge of the AK-47 and AKM series of rifles.
However, some overlapping of rifle design and cartridge application occurs; for example a few relatively compact selective-fire rifles in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber have been produced.
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". The name was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
* It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
* It must be capable of selective fire;
* It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
* Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Don't let the semantics upset you Littlelebowski, we have to use some term to differentiate the weapons.
Cameron
Littlelebowski
03-27-09, 11:05
The semantics don't bother me; it's the sneering and pretty much what Cody0341 said, Cameron.
Using that logic, which is based on emotionally equating; "Because an M4 is not a battle rifle, and I use an M4, people can therefore conclude that I have never been in a battle!" is nonsensical.
It doesn't matter if someone was in a battle or not, or which weapon is used. You could use a Ruger 10/22 in a "battle" but it wouldn't therefore make it a "battle rifle". The battle rifle/assault rifle differentiation is a valid one, while both can be used in a battle or equally both can be used to make an assault, it makes no difference to the utility of the term to describe the different type of weapons. Similarly it makes zero difference if the user was in Fallujah in a battle, in Papa New Guinea in a skirmish, or on a SWAT team making an assault...
Just because one uses an Assault Rifle, a Squad Automatic Weapon, a Sniper's rifle, or a Battle Rifle, it does not diminish the actuality of the warriors participation in the conflict. Don't let the sneering of the airsofters, no matter what they are sneering about, upset you.
Silly how many people on internet forums seem to have invented this term and apply it only to .308 rifles.
Remember the terms "Battle Rifle" and "Assault Rifle" were coined DECADES before the internet was even a glimmer in Al Gore's eye.
Cameron
I've always referred to them as "fighting rifles," and if there needed to be any further clarification I would specify "fighting carbines" (if applicable). There isn't much need, if any, for the semantic separation of thirty caliber rifles and smaller rifles; bad guys sure don't seem to care which they get shot with. This is especially true as bullet technology continues to progress and smaller calibers are becoming more capable of tasks formerly exclusive to the larger calibers.
-B
People who obsess on the correct usage of the term "Battle rifle" are former or current Dungeons and Dragons Masturbators!
The terms "Battle Rifles", used to differentiate rifles firing full power cartridges like 30/06, and generally 7.62x51mm, from rifles firing medium power cartridges like 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm 5.56x45mm, etc, has been around for decades, I remember people using it back in the early 80's.
I've certainly never used it in a snide way, it's just been in the vernacular for years and years.
The terms "Battle Rifles", used to differentiate rifles firing full power cartridges like 30/06, and generally 7.62x51mm, from rifles firing medium power cartridges like 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm 5.56x45mm, etc, has been around for decades, I remember people using it back in the early 80's.
I've certainly never used it in a snide way, it's just been in the vernacular for years and years.
Exactly.
Humans like to categorize things for some reason.
"Battle Rifle" is just one of the categories someone came up with ages ago.
As is "Assault Rifle".
Don't stress.
Guys, guys - aren't we all supposed to use the term "sporting rifles?"
You know, if its an AR15 or 30/30 Marlin - Sporting rifles...
;)
Homeland Defense Carbines?
Nathan_Bell
03-27-09, 20:24
Guys, guys - aren't we all supposed to use the term "sporting rifles?"
You know, if its an AR15 or 30/30 Marlin - Sporting rifles...
;)
Boomstick, all bases covered :p
If you can use it as a club and beat an enemy to death without breaking it, then it is a battle rifle.
Littlelebowski
03-28-09, 09:16
I wasn't referring to airsofters sneering, more like the guys who screech bout "mouseguns" and "a rifle should be made of wood and steel.)
I wasn't referring to airsofters sneering, more like the guys who screech bout "mouseguns" and "a rifle should be made of wood and steel.)
Wow, you've got to look kinda long and hard for those guys anymore.
Unless you're hanging out on a Garand/M14 forum.
RogerinTPA
03-28-09, 10:21
There will always be the "purist" in any discussion involving firearms. M14 vs M16, 45 vs 9mm. The purist are die hard fans of a certain platform and will not be swayed by any radical innovative technologies to change the look of that platform. Example, I am a purist on the match grade M-14/M1A1 competition shooting platform, but on the flip side of that coin, on the AR, I am looking for the most innovative, practical and efficient technologies that that work for me. Nothing wrong with that.
Outlander Systems
03-28-09, 10:30
I wasn't referring to airsofters sneering, more like the guys who screech bout "mouseguns" and "a rifle should be made of wood and steel.)
Ugh.
Dude, guns with wood on 'em belong over a mantle, or in a museum.
I know it's just like, my opinion, man, but the "superiority" of antiquated weaponry is like comparing a bow-drill to a blow torch.
Boomstick, all bases covered :p
My personal favorite, too. Works for everything from a pistol to a chain gun.
Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!
woodandsteel
03-28-09, 12:38
[QUOTE=TheLandlord;338067]Ugh.
Dude, guns with wood on 'em belong over a mantle, or in a museum.
QUOTE]
Even this one???:p
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo187/woodandsteel/IMG_0212JPG.jpg
j/k.
I can understand what you are saying. I wouldn't consider this to be a "Battle Rifle". And I would choose this over my M1. Of course, I would chosse my M4, when the build is complete, over my AK.
But I love the old battle rifles mad of wood and steel. Sadly, I only have one. I will have to post a pic of it in the M1 photo thread.
Ugh.
Dude, guns with wood on 'em belong over a mantle, or in a museum.
I know it's just like, my opinion, man, but the "superiority" of antiquated weaponry is like comparing a bow-drill to a blow torch.
you would never realize that a 60 year old gun with wood on it made your head peal back like a smashed cantelope from 600yds, even after it was put back on the mantle. believe it or not they have free floated barrels and can be devastatingly accurate. my m39 with open sights can easily bang the gong over and over at 300yds shooting 50 year old bulgarian heavy ball ammo.
http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq293/badka2ma/10__39SOV_perspective.jpg
http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq293/badka2ma/m39.jpg
i would not want to be stuck on the far side of 400yds against this gun while i'm holding my ar15. now that is a battle rifle.
Littlelebowski
03-28-09, 16:04
you would never realize that a 60 year old gun with wood on it made your head peal back like a smashed cantelope from 600yds, even after it was put back on the mantle. believe it or not they have free floated barrels and can be devastatingly accurate. my m39 with open sights can easily bang the gong over and over at 300yds shooting 50 year old bulgarian heavy ball ammo.
i would not want to be stuck on the far side of 400yds against this gun while i'm holding my ar15. now that is a battle rifle.
And I'll bet money you wouldn't want to be stuck on the far side of 400 yards from an M4/M16 either. Thank you for illustrating my initial point so well. NO one here said the older rifles were ineffective, just that the newer ones are better in many ways.
I am not sure if it was Chuck Taylor or perhaps Jeff Cooper who coined the term or made the term "Main Battle rifle" popular. As already said, it applies to semiauto or select fire full caliber rifles as opposed to those in reduced size calibers like the 5.56mm or 7.62x39.
I've seen some people on onoe or two other forums actually post that they would rather have an M1 Garand if they had to go into combat in Iraq. This is why I don't bother reading or posting there once I have gotten a feel for those forums and see that those views are considered credible there. I refer to these forums as "Bubba forums."
From my limited interaction, a lot of the people who hold these views are chest thumpers who have no formal training or service, save perhaps high power rifle competition and they believe that high power competition is reflective of modern combat. Nothing against high power, as it teaches some good accuracy skills and takes discipline, but for goodness sakes they tie up their support arm with a sling and use their firing hand to load/unload magazines--something anyone who has taken a single carbine class taught by a half competant instructor knows is not the way to run a magazine fed longarm.
I would think a bolt action sniper rifle is a bolt action sniper rifle and not considered a main battle rifle. The only distinction might be in vintage. An Moisin Nagant with a 3.5 power scope could still be used to deadly effect, but not as easily, accurately, or effectively as a more modern choice wth more modern ergonomics and optics.
Littlelebowski
03-28-09, 16:23
I've seen some people on onoe or two other forums actually post that they would rather have an M1 Garand if they had to go into combat in Iraq. This is why I don't bother reading or posting there once I have gotten a feel for those forums and see that those views are considered credible there. I refer to these forums as "Bubba forums."
Agreed. These are usually the same forums that bash AR15's reliability but praise 1911s :rolleyes:
And I'll bet money you wouldn't want to be stuck on the far side of 400 yards from an M4/M16 either. Thank you for illustrating my initial point so well. NO one here said the older rifles were ineffective, just that the newer ones are better in many ways.
are we really that much better off with an m4 than say a garand? has 60 years yielded that much innovation with infantry rifles? how much better is the black rifle over a garand. it's a wood battle rifle. exremely accurate. extremely reliable.
i know they are heavier. i would rather carry an m4 thats for sure. but depending on application the garand may be better suited. the 5.56 starts running out of of steam fast past 450m. .30-06 will take someones head off at twice that distance. the garand is more reliable. the m4 has more round capacity. as far as i'm concerned you can almost negate the positive features of full auto as did the federal govt. it has it's place but an infantry weapon (other than saw) in most applications isn't it. the m4 has limitations. dusting off the old m14's for issue in iraq was proof to this.
so it boils down to:
ergonomics - m4 wins
accuracy - tie
reliability - garand wins
round capacity - m4 wins
effective range - garand wins
if you can think of more areas to compare add them....
i'm not an ar15 basher. i own 4. i love to shoot them. thats why i'm here. are they the best rifles on the planet? no. what is? there is no best. they all have different features that make them good at different applications.
I can't stand this term. How is an M4 not a battle rifle? Silly how many people on internet forums seem to have invented this term and apply it only to .308 rifles. Anyone else get tired of the term and its application/snobbery?
I completely agree.
There is no such thing as a "battle rifle" unless you consider every infantry rifle a battle rifle.
An FAL/AR10/G3/M14 all meet the definition of assault rifle
They use a smaller cartridge compared to the previous line of cartridges preceding it.
They are select fire and uses a detachable box magazine.
The terms "Battle Rifles", used to differentiate rifles firing full power cartridges like 30/06, and generally 7.62x51mm, from rifles firing medium power cartridges like 8mm Kurz, 7.62x39mm 5.56x45mm, etc, has been around for decades, I remember people using it back in the early 80's.
I've certainly never used it in a snide way, it's just been in the vernacular for years and years.
What defines a full power cartrige and where do you draw the line.
.30-06 is full power? What about the next step down to 7.62x51? What about the next after that 6.8 Rem? What about 5.56 Nato?
Where is the cuttoff between full power and intermediate? It is a subjective term.
Battle Rifle = FAL/M14 full sized rifle with a full power cartridge
Assault Rifle = M16 Rifle full sized rifle with a intermediate power cartridge
Assault Carbine = M4 Carbine a short(er) assault rifle
Assault Weapon = Any gun the libs wanna ban. :p
are we really that much better off with an m4 than say a garand? has 60 years yielded that much innovation with infantry rifles? how much better is the black rifle over a garand. it's a wood battle rifle. exremely accurate. extremely reliable.
i know they are heavier. i would rather carry an m4 thats for sure. but depending on application the garand may be better suited. the 5.56 starts running out of of steam fast past 450m. .30-06 will take someones head off at twice that distance.
I don't know about that. There is a matter of accuracy and target acquisition so even if the Garand has more kinetic energy, you still have to see the target and hit it.
Are rack grade Garands as accurate as rack grade M4s?
How about setting both guns up with optics? How easy is it to set each respective gun up? I think the M4 gets the nod in this area.
It seems a lot of long distance shooting ability is more theoretical than anything else, since you are limited by terrain and cover as to being able to pick up targets--or at least that is how the theory goes. I remember Pat Rogers mentioning in a class that *most* small arms engagements since WWII take place within 120 meters (I beleive this includes WWII).
[/quote]the garand is more reliable. [/quote]
Is the rack grade Garand more reliable than the rack grade M4?
the m4 has more round capacity. as far as i'm concerned you can almost negate the positive features of full auto as did the federal govt. it has it's place but an infantry weapon (other than saw) in most applications isn't it. the m4 has limitations. dusting off the old m14's for issue in iraq was proof to this.
They dusted off the M14s because they were the only thing immediately available and chambered in 7.62 NATO. I'm sure they would have rather had a SCARH or a HK416.
i'm not an ar15 basher. i own 4. i love to shoot them. thats why i'm here. are they the best rifles on the planet? no. what is? there is no best. they all have different features that make them good at different applications.
Here is an interesting exercise: if you had to go into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan today, would you choose an M1 Garand or an M4?
To me, battle rifle means parkerized steel and walnut
I think some of this goes with your frame of reference. Over the last few years, we've learned quite a lot about small arms over the last few decades due to advances in technology like reliable red dot optics and lessons in combat from Iraq & Afghanistan. This includes lessons about maintenance of the M4/M16.
If someone had experience with an M1 Garand in combat 50+ years ago and did not follow modern developments, I could see who they might think that the Garand was all he needed, especially if he heard horror stories about the M-16 malfunctioning in combat. However if he got to try a properly maintained M4 equipped with an Aimpoint, and had proper maintenance explained to him, his opinion might change.
Outlander Systems
03-28-09, 20:43
**** it. Since there's no winning:
WTS/WTT:
M4-type Carbine w/ Trjicon Reflex for Blunderbuss
---also---
WTS/WTT:
M4-type Carbine w/ Trjicon TX30 for a Marlin 1895
I wasn't referring to airsofters sneering, more like the guys who screech bout "mouseguns" and "a rifle should be made of wood and steel.)
And don't forget it must also have a stock that is too long and a fairly useless sling setup:D
I don't see any reason to be arguing about this stuff.
Outlander Systems
03-28-09, 21:27
All obnoxious smarmy-ness aside, seriously, how do I justify to a judge that I took a 600 yd "self-defense" shot?
Would it even be REMOTELY practical to be wielding a 12lb, 42" rifle in confined spaces, like a house? ****, I don't even keep a shotgun for HD anymore due to the obscenely long profile, let alone an M1 Garand. If I'm defending a ranch from a pack of rabid coyotes, different story. I think the lack of versatility alone is a big drawback to some of the older weapons of warfare.
Even insinuating that today's battlefields are anything resembling combat 30 years ago is absurd, let alone 70. I'll throw props to SA for shortening the barrel on some of their rifles, adding modern furniture and mounting capabilities, etc. but for their weapon systems to remain competitive, outside of collector pieces, it was a necessity. That being said, as a civilian, I can't plausibly justify "self-defense" with all but a stamped guarantee of collateral damage. Poor ergonomics are a deal-breaker enough for me.
I give up.
Somebody can be shot dead with a .25, but that doesn't exactly make it the best choice. I'm sure my head can be split open like a cantaloupe from 600 yds. from a vast array of weaponry, but that isn't necessarily the criteria used for choosing military hardware.
By the some of the logic here, I'm assuming the military should dump the SCAR 17 for Mosin Nagants?
I am old enough to have carried a M14 in the Infantry. One of the happiest days of my service life was when we were issued M16s. The 14 is a heavy mutha.
As an aside, I only qualified Marksman with the 14, but Expert with the 16 - go figure!
Littlelebowski
03-28-09, 21:46
so it boils down to:
ergonomics - m4 wins
accuracy - tiew
reliability - garand wins
round capacity - m4 wins
effective range - garand wins
if you can think of more areas to compare add them....
i'm not an ar15 basher. i own 4. i love to shoot them. thats why i'm here. are they the best rifles on the planet? no. what is? there is no best. they all have different features that make them good at different applications.
The M4 is more accurate and if you actually think that as issued that you'd be making 600 yard shots with the Garand vs the M4, you need to re-read your history. Also, MOST of your arguments center around caliber not rifle. The SR25 negates ALL of your arguments.
are we really that much better off with an m4 than say a garand?
YES
has 60 years yielded that much innovation with infantry rifles?
YES, the US military didn't just go to the M16 willy nilly. After action reports of WW2 and Korea were studied, it was decided what was wanted/needed. And we got teh M14 instead, theres a reason it only lasted 7 years in front line service.
how much better is the black rifle over a garand. it's a wood battle rifle. exremely accurate. extremely reliable.
GI had to piss on their M1 to get tehm to work in extreme cold, every gun has its limits, and combat will find them.
The M16fow are now regualrly winning in competiton. With much less effort. All teh accuracy in the world will do you know good if you
A- cant use it
B cant see the enemey at that range
C run out of ammo
i know they are heavier. i would rather carry an m4 thats for sure. but depending on application the garand may be better suited. the 5.56 starts running out of of steam fast past 450m.
As mentioned by ED, it was determined that the vast majority of infantry combat takes place w/in 150mtrs. Past that you have crew served weapons, indirect, etc.
.30-06 will take someones head off at twice that distance.
How many troops can actually see and ID a threat at that range, much less actually shoot accurately enough to engage it.
the garand is more reliable.
Debatable
the m4 has more round capacity. as far as i'm concerned you can almost negate the positive features of full auto as did the federal govt. it has it's place but an infantry weapon (other than saw) in most applications isn't it. the m4 has limitations. dusting off the old m14's for issue in iraq was proof to this.
The M14 was pressed into service because we had them, and not everbody wanted them, but had them forced on them. How much of it, was due to the percieved need for the 7.62 adn the mythology of the M14?
so it boils down to:
ergonomics - m4 wins
accuracy - tie
reliability - garand wins Debateable
round capacity - m4 wins
effective range - garand wins Debateable
if you can think of more areas to compare add them....
i'm not an ar15 basher. i own 4. i love to shoot them. thats why i'm here. are they the best rifles on the planet? no. what is? there is no best. they all have different features that make them good at different applications.
As mentioned the "assualt rifle" including the M16fow grew out of actual combat needs, not what people thought was needed. Pat Rogers had noted the Germans ID this need in 1918.
I'm with LB, many epople use the terms derogatorily. MUch like the 1911 VS the world threads.
From now on when I hear "Tactikewl", "mall ninja", "mousegun", I'm gonna thow out "fat old bald guy" "has been" "antiquated"etc:D
Bob
I am old enough to have carried a M14 in the Infantry. One of the happiest days of my service life was when we were issued M16s. The 14 is a heavy mutha.
As an aside, I only qualified Marksman with the 14, but Expert with the 16 - go figure!
Over on another forum, someone posted a survey conducted by the Army, during Vietnam. Interestingly it was of Marines. While many old school Marines insist they did not want to give up the 14, and it was forced on them, this studied would seem to indicate differently.
Many replies listed reliability problems with the M14, weight, maintenance, etc. There was at least one reply that went something like, "Why can't we have M16's like the Army".
To be fair, there was one or two reply by Marines perfectly happy with his weapon and gear, but not as many as you would think.
Bob
Littlelebowski
03-28-09, 21:54
Thanks, Bob. We can keep this civil, mods and everyone else involved. I know some things go without being said on M4C but sometimes folks need a reminder as to the facts.
All obnoxious smarmy-ness aside, seriously, how do I justify to a judge that I took a 600 yd "self-defense" shot?
I think in the above case we are talking about battlefield use, not home defense.
Would it even be REMOTELY practical to be wielding a 12lb, 42" rifle in confined spaces, like a house? ****, I don't even keep a shotgun for HD anymore due to the obscenely long profile, let alone an M1 Garand. If I'm defending a ranch from a pack of rabid coyotes, different story. I think the lack of versatility alone is a big drawback to some of the older weapons of warfare.
I agree with you there. If all I had was an M1 Garand, for the battlefield or home defense, then that is what I would use. But it certainly would not be my first (or fifth choice) for home defense.
Somebody can be shot dead with a .25, but that doesn't exactly make it the best choice. I'm sure my head can be split open like a cantaloupe from 600 yds. from a vast array of weaponry, but that isn't necessarily the criteria used for choosing military hardware.
This is the problem. You can find examples of people effectively using unsuitable weapons or weapons that have been replaced by much better things. This doesn't mean that those unsuitable/outdated weapons are a good choice for modern use.
The M4 is more accurate and if you actually think that as issued that you'd be making 600 yard shots with the Garand vs the M4, you need to re-read your history. Also, MOST of your arguments center around caliber not rifle. The SR25 negates ALL of your arguments.
the problem is the sr25 is not an infantry weapon my friend, it is replacing the m24, which is considered sniper rifle. so it really has no place in the battle rifle discussion.
the m4 cannot do it all. it is not a carbine but it is not full power battle rifle. even though it can be very accurate out 800-1000yds in competition it doesn't have enough juice to to do the work at distances past
450m with authority . yes, most conflicts take place under 150m, but not all. that is why there are squad level marksmen carrying spr's and the like. they might as well be carrying a differnt gun altogether. they don't shoot the same ammo to accomplish their duty.
depending on what the application is would decide what gun to carry. if i were in an organized fighting unit with good supply and plenty of backup, and time to clean my weapon, i would without a doubt carry an m4. if you came to me and said you can take one gun only we can't tell you where you are going or what you are doing. it's an ak47. in between that there is room for other weapons to be used.
i never said that the garand was as good as the m4. what i said was have we really come that far? and i tried to demonstrate it. the answer is no.
my grandfather fought in wwII and did alot of house cleaning. he used a thompson. he killed many of the enemy. he won the silver star, two bronze stars, the presidential unit citation, a couple medals from france, and the purple heart. he went in a private and came home after two years as a staff sgt. he was acting platoon leader the last year he was there. he is gone now, he passed away in 2006. we had pleny of range time with my m1a and my ar's. he said to me "man, if we would have a gun like that, we would have really wiped them out." , referring to my ar15's. i know they are better rifles. they have been "groomed" and improved into the role they play now. they cover everything from sub machine gun to medium distance rifle duty.
if you compare the infantry rifles plight compared every other kind of technology over the past 60 years i think you'll find they have more in common with the 60 year old guns than they do uncommon.
Guys, guys - aren't we all supposed to use the term "sporting rifles?"
You know, if its an AR15 or 30/30 Marlin - Sporting rifles...
;)
mine's a Sport Utility Rifle...
:cool:
the problem is the sr25 is not an infantry weapon my friend, it is replacing the m24, which is considered sniper rifle. so it really has no place in the battle rifle discussion.
the m4 cannot do it all. it is not a carbine but it is not full power battle rifle. even though it can be very accurate out 800-1000yds in competition it doesn't have enough juice to to do the work at distances past
450m with authority . yes, most conflicts take place under 150m, but not all. that is why there are squad level marksmen carrying spr's and the like. they might as well be carrying a differnt gun altogether. they don't shoot the same ammo to accomplish their duty.
depending on what the application is would decide what gun to carry. if i were in an organized fighting unit with good supply and plenty of backup, and time to clean my weapon, i would without a doubt carry an m4. if you came to me and said you can take one gun only we can't tell you where you are going or what you are doing. it's an ak47. in between that there is room for other weapons to be used.
i never said that the garand was as good as the m4. what i said was have we really come that far? and i tried to demonstrate it. the answer is no.
my grandfather fought in wwII and did alot of house cleaning. he used a thompson. he killed many of the enemy. he won the silver star, two bronze stars, the presidential unit citation, a couple medals from france, and the purple heart. he went in a private and came home after two years as a staff sgt. he was acting platoon leader the last year he was there. he is gone now, he passed away in 2006. we had pleny of range time with my m1a and my ar's. he said to me "man, if we would have a gun like that, we would have really wiped them out." , referring to my ar15's. i know they are better rifles. they have been "groomed" and improved into the role they play now. they cover everything from sub machine gun to medium distance rifle duty.
if you compare the infantry rifles plight compared every other kind of technology over the past 60 years i think you'll find they have more in common with the 60 year old guns than they do uncommon.
First..Firearms are a relatively old technology, how much more can they advance? They are not like computers, communications, etc that are advancing at blinding paces.
What we are seeing and will likely see is a refinement or fine tuning of technology, and its use.
Second.. an assault rifle by definition is a compromise. No one argues that. No one argues that a 7.62 or 30-06 is more powerful or "effective".
They grew out of combat experience that showed we were saddling Soldiers with a weapon with to much capability in one area and not enough in another, compromising the majority of the Soldiers mission, for the minority. IE: giving up firepower, maneuverability, shoot-ability etc for long range ability.
It also replaced multiple weapon systems that were a strain on the logistic system, reducing ammo types, part types etc etc.
My infantry days ended awhile ago, and I'm sure guys like LB will tell me if things have changed much, though I am reliably informed they haven't. But,...
I would much rather have my rifle squad all armed with M4 carbines, with a grenade launcher, like the HK69 thrown in, and a MK48 machine gun attached, then have a squad full of different weapons.
While theoretically a squad can engage all sorts of threats, with it's multiple weapons, I only have one or two Soldiers engaging the adversary. When they are all armed substantially the same, I have everyone involved, at the same level, everyone has the same capability, and non capability.
We as an Army, or squad leader, etc do not have the luxury of picking the battlefield, or the most appropriate weapon for that battlefield. An M1 for this, and M4 for that, and AK for the other. The best we can do, is issue a weapon that covers the widest spectrum of likely engagements, fairly well, with a little modularity to tailor it somewhat to different venues( optics, NODS, etc).
Using your Grandfathers analogy, the M4 may fall short of the M1 in some battlefield, but outclasses the M1carbine and Thompson in others.
And I know plenty of combat veterans from VN through the current operations with no problem whatsoever with the M4.
Back to LB's original topic, for me, its not so much the term, but the attitude that so often accompanies it.
Again, much like the " handgun design started and ended in 1911" type attitude, "Tupperware" etc etc. All derogatory comments against guns that have made substantial impacts on the shooting community, especially combat weapons.
Most of these comments are derived from ignorance, preconceived ideas, stubbornness, myth, romanticism, etc and not fact.
Bob
Gutshot John
03-29-09, 08:41
As an scholar, isn't this getting a little bit muddled? Human beings seem to be obsessed with classifying things. Many people who've participated in this discussion know far more than I do, but I don't think it has to be so...academic.
Assault Rifle - Select-fire, intermediate cartridge.
Battle Rifle - Bolt or Semi-Auto, full-power cartridge (while some have select-fire capability, it's most effectively used as a semi-auto).
Sniper rifles used to be built on battle rifles, but less so today, that said increasingly semis are being used (SR25) so I think the battle rifle designation is still appropriate.
"Main" Battle Rifle (MBR) - Standard military arm (could be assault or battle) that a particular army chooses.
All of these seem to compromise one characteristic in favor of an another. More modern weapons take advantage of lighter materials to decrease weight etc. but that doesn't necessarily mean that wooden stocks are outclassed, any more than they are superior to plastic "mouse" guns... it's the magician not the wand. :p
I love my FALs, but I also love my M4s. It's kind of like saying you have a favorite kid. Each brings something unique to the table.
What makes a sniper rifle effective is the sniper himself, so I don't think the tool used is easily classified or particularly relevant. Without the sniper skill set, you've got a really expensive battle rifle.
As an scholar, isn't this getting a little bit muddled? Human beings seem to be obsessed with classifying things.
Nothing "seems" about it. Americans in particular have an absolute joy of needlessly sub-categorizing and pigeon-holing information and definitions to no ultimate purpose. The net effect ends up being a bunch of folks arguing over whether or not it's possible to pick up a turd from the clean end, and is why there are idiots out there that think Six Sigma is an applicable process methodology in a non-manufacturing environment.
So we see this is not really about semantics, or even what constitute a "battle rifle" and what is the correct use of the term "assault rifle". Instead this is just about people being insecure and overly defensive about their choices for a firearm.
If some retard on an internet forums can make you feel bad because your pet "assault rifle" is not a true "battle rifle", I think it is not a problem of the capabilities of your weapon but a lack of confidence in your choices.
I love .45 1911s and carry one the majority of the time, the rest of the time I carry a 9mm Glock. Similarly I love my FAL battle rifles and I am also crazy about my AR15s. Do you think I care if someone says my Glock19 is wimpy BB gun tupperware, or when I have an AR at the range, do you think I care if someone says it is not a true "battle rifle" and is a "poodle shooter"?
I think it is great when I ****wit opens his mouth and says stuff like that, as it enables me to pop him in a pigeon hole and never have to think about him again.
Cameron
CarlosDJackal
03-29-09, 18:56
I wasn't referring to airsofters sneering, more like the guys who screech bout "mouseguns" and "a rifle should be made of wood and steel.)
The last time I heard the term "mousegun" was when a High Power Competitor said, "I can't believe that guy with the mousegun beat me!!" :D
So we see this is not really about semantics, or even what constitute a "battle rifle" and what is the correct use of the term "assault rifle". Instead this is just about people being insecure and overly defensive about their choices for a firearm.
If some retard on an internet forums can make you feel bad because your pet "assault rifle" is not a true "battle rifle", I think it is not a problem of the capabilities of your weapon but a lack of confidence in your choices.
I love .45 1911s and carry one the majority of the time, the rest of the time I carry a 9mm Glock. Similarly I love my FAL battle rifles and I am also crazy about my AR15s. Do you think I care if someone says my Glock19 is wimpy BB gun tupperware, or when I have an AR at the range, do you think I care if someone says it is not a true "battle rifle" and is a "poodle shooter"?
I think it is great when I ****wit opens his mouth and says stuff like that, as it enables me to pop him in a pigeon hole and never have to think about him again.
Cameron
No insecurity or defensivness here, or with LB I'm sure.
Just fatigue over fanboys talking about stuff in a deragatory manner, and generally doing it from a position of ignorance.
Bob
stanlyonjr
03-29-09, 20:36
I'm sure glad I took the time to define and state the history behind the differences between a "battle rifle" and "assault rifle". Looks like it did lots of good!;)
Nothing "seems" about it. Americans in particular have an absolute joy of needlessly sub-categorizing and pigeon-holing information and definitions to no ultimate purpose. The net effect ends up being a bunch of folks arguing over whether or not it's possible to pick up a turd from the clean end, and is why there are idiots out there that think Six Sigma is an applicable process methodology in a non-manufacturing environment.
This bears repeating. Well said, Riverine.
-B
I'm sure glad I took the time to define and state the history behind the differences between a "battle rifle" and "assault rifle". Looks like it did lots of good!;)
Yea, thanks I already new the story. Can you tell me, definitively where the term "battle Rifle" came from, and how it came to be ID'd with 308 or "full power" rifle cartridges?
Me thinks its something someone dreamed up to differentiate them from Assault Rifles.
As has been noted, I think the OP's main grip was the "snobbery" sometimes applied by those who champion the "battle Rifle" over the "mouse gun". NOt the definition, or the merits of either gun.
Bob
stanlyonjr
03-29-09, 21:37
A Battle Rifle or Main Battle Rifle is a full-size select fire rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. 'High power', in this instance, refers to a combination of velocity and bullet weight; these cartridges commonly employ bullet weights of at least 147 grains (9.5 g) and velocities in excess of 2,600 feet per second (790 m/s). The term battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II selective-fire infantry service rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL, the ArmaLite AR-10, or the American M14.
I think the OP's main grip was the "snobbery" sometimes applied by those who champion the "battle Rifle" over the "mouse gun". NOt the definition, or the merits of either gun.
Bob
So we all agree retards and ****wits on the errornet are a pain in the arse.
Ignore them.
This bears repeating. Well said, Riverine.
-B
I get where LB is coming from, is all.
I get sharp-shot by gov't logisticians that don't know METT-T from MET-Rx, who want me to say "happy" instead of "glad," for no better reason than they think I'll do their bidding. If I put the word "glad" in a curriculum, it's either because it has a direct technical need to be said that way or because it doesn't matter what is said so long as the student smiles when he's supposed to.
One of the things I love about this site is that the SMEs know when a word or phrase has a specific technical application, and when getting in the weeds over definitions turns you into That Guy...you know the one, who publicly corrects others' grammar and reads his poetry in public. Christ alone knows what other bad habits That Guy has....
Personal thoughts only, those that get wrapped around the axle over terms for their own sake, instead of for a purpose, belong in that special level of Hell reserved for child molesters and people that talk in the theater during movies. Unfortunately, they often work for the DoD before they burn.
Which is hard to do at times.
Turning cover into concealment.
Which can be hard to do at times.
Turning cover into concealment.
A Battle Rifle or Main Battle Rifle is a full-size select fire rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. 'High power', in this instance, refers to a combination of velocity and bullet weight; these cartridges commonly employ bullet weights of at least 147 grains (9.5 g) and velocities in excess of 2,600 feet per second (790 m/s). The term battle rifle is usually given to post-World War II selective-fire infantry service rifles such as the H&K G3, the FN FAL, the ArmaLite AR-10, or the American M14.
Again, I got it, thanks for the history lesson. But, what I asked is can you tell us definitively where the term came from, and who defined the terms battle rifle and full power? Since you not only gave us the history lesson the first time, you felt the need to let us know that you did....
Either way its a side note to the OP's point.
Bob
Again, I got it, thanks for the history lesson. But, what I asked is can you tell us definitively where the term came from, and who defined the terms battle rifle and full power? Since you not only gave us the history lesson the first time, you felt the need to let us know that you did....
Either way its a side note to the OP's point.
Bob
Here is the "official" definition of "assault rifle". Not what you asked but it may help understand what a battle rifle isnt't (?)
http://gunfax.com/aw.htm
The link actually has scanned pages from a US Army Intelligence manual
stanlyonjr
03-30-09, 09:35
Again, I got it, thanks for the history lesson. But, what I asked is can you tell us definitively where the term came from, and who defined the terms battle rifle and full power? Since you not only gave us the history lesson the first time, you felt the need to let us know that you did....
Either way its a side note to the OP's point.
Bob
I all my reading I have never seen who coined the term "battle rifle". If I was guess I would say Jeff Cooper but I can not prove it.
eguns & stan,
I was not trying to be an ass, though it came off that way. But my point has been made...no one really has an official definition of "battle rifle".
I understand the accepted definition of both Assault and battle rifles, and at least with the assault rifle we have the history behind it, and the above posted "definition".
Either way its academic or moot, as I believe LB's real point was the supposed superiority of the "battle rifle" often touted, by its fan boys, rather then the definition itself.
Though he has a point, we do battle with the M4.
Bob
stanlyonjr
03-30-09, 20:51
No insult taken Bob. Like all subjects, each has his or her own idea of whats what. I think we are all adults, well mostly all adults and we can agree to disagree.
AZ Old Guy
03-31-09, 00:39
I read a magazine article recently about a variation in 3-gun competition. Some guys in Colorado started a "he-man" division of 3-gun that requires a "battle rifle" (M1A, HK91, FAL, etc) in .308 with iron sights, a .45 ACP with iron sights, and a 12-gauge shotgun. The concept is to use what the last generation used with full-power loads. To be honest, the concept intrigues me, and if I wasn't 60 and in terrible physical condition, I'd love to try it with my PTR-91, Kimber 1911 and FNH SLP Mark 1. As it is, my bum knee won't allow me to run or kneel, but it would be fantastic fun. Not to mention a great challenge.
Here's a question, the answers to which may reveal a little (if not in relation to AR-15s, at least to other .308s)...
Would you consider the new FN AR a "battle rifle?" It costs about the same as a base M1A, AR-10 or FAL, so it's likely to be considered as a competitor to a certain portion of the buyer's market, especially if it's the only black .308 on the wall...
Cheers, Carb
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.