"Battle rifles"

[Outlander Systems]

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.

[JSantoro]

Boomstick, all bases covered

My personal favorite, too. Works for everything from a pistol to a chain gun.

Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!

[woodandsteel]

[QUOTE=TheLandlord;338067]Ugh.

Dude, guns with wood on 'em belong over a mantle, or in a museum.

QUOTE]

Even this one???



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.

[badka2ma]

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.





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]

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.

[Ed L.]

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]

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

[badka2ma]

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.

[scottryan]

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.

[scottryan]

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.