"Battle Rifle" vs. "Precision Rifle"

[wild_wild_wes]

Given the greater weight of a semi-automatic 7.62 rifle/ammo platform, does a pure "battle rifle" like the SCAR-H really make sense? For the lightest weight possible on a battle rifle/carbine, a shorter, lightweight barrel is needed. Or, since the weapon is going to be heavier than a 5.56 rifle anyway, would it be better to have a heavier, accurised barrel, thus giving you a precision rifle? In other words, since you are paying the weight penalty anyway for a harder-hitting round, would it be best to fold that capability into an accurized weapon?

[Belmont31R]

A precision barrel would have a hard time keeping up the accuracy if treated like a battle rifle, and would accelerate things like throat erosion. There is a reason a lot of old war guns shoot like shit if they were used that much. Mass issued rifles should be able to take a little neglect which is also detrimental to precision in most cases. If you look at the M4/M16 soldiers are not even issued bore cleaner/copper remover.


For personal use you can use whatever you want but I would rather stick with something Im not going to worry about accuracy degradation with and has a barrel better suited to higher rate of fire. SCAR, FAL, G3, ect.


I would have to look it up but the recommend rate of fire for the SR25 is pretty low.


According to the TM, "In training or peacetime, the rifle should never be fired rapidly or past the point where the barrel/sound suppressor cannot be held comfortably in the hand because it is too hot."


It goes on to talk about abuse of the system can lead to premature barrel wear and loss of accuracy, and recommends 5 rounds per minute of sustained fire.

[broylz]

unless you have a squad of shooters with you, most battle rifles shouldnt have such a high sustained rate of fire anyway. i prefer to have a combat worthy gun in the aspects of durability and reliability and a precision standard of 1moa. you dont have to abuse them, thats a choice.

i also believe that the weight isnt as much of an issue as weight when it comes to shooting, up to a point. if youre humping a rifle for any real distance, a 9lb m4 gets heavy and bothersome the same as a 12lb m14. when you need either, the weight isnt an issue.

i still prefer a precise battle rifle

[DeltaSierra]

i also believe that the weight isnt as much of an issue as weight when it comes to shooting, up to a point. if youre humping a rifle for any real distance, a 9lb m4 gets heavy and bothersome the same as a 12lb m14. when you need either, the weight isnt an issue.

If you are carrying a rifle for more than an hour or two, you WILL notice every extra ounce, and you will want to get rid of the excess weight...

[QuietShootr]

If you are carrying a rifle for more than an hour or two, you WILL notice every extra ounce, and you will want to get rid of the excess weight...

Yup. The difference between 8 and 12 isn't a lot from the car to the bench.

[broylz]

Yup. The difference between 8 and 12 isn't a lot from the car to the bench.

the difference between 8 and 12lbs isnt a whole lot when you really need it either. i hated body armor much more than the heavier rifle.

[danish]

I am currently in the middle of a 308 build which is going to be a precision rifle but there is a little voice that keeps saying 'battle rifle.' A dedicated battle rifle upper with a chrome-lined barrel will be in the future but to keep the little voice quiet I am going to take a couple considerations from a battle rifle and put it in to my precision upper. First, I am going to have my stainless barrel melonited to take the abuse of a higher rate of fire and thwart throat erosion and barrel wear with no loss of accuracy. Long distance precision shooters are having their barrels melonited for ease of cleaning and increasing barrel longevity. Most shooters get rid of a barrel at around 3,000 rounds due to inaccuracy but with meloniting the barrel they are reporting 10,000 and some change before a re-barrel is necessary. Secondly, instead of a 20" plus barrel I am going to go with an 18" barrel for greater maneuverability if the situation arises. I will lose velocity with the shorter barrel and have heard both loss and gain in velocity with the meloniting but neither is going to lead to inaccuracy.

[HaydenB]

I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "why do I really want a full power rifle cartridge?"

If your answer is something like: "because I like the boost in terminal performance and barrier penetration." A light, chrome-lined, 7.62x51 carbine makes sense.

If your answer is a more like: "because I like how it has more energy and less wind drift at longer ranges." A SS barreled, full size rife with a high power optic makes sense.

I personally think a middle ground is best for most applications. Say a free-floated rifle with a 2-7x illuminated reticle optic, and an 18" med-con chrome-lined barrel.

[decodeddiesel]

i also believe that the weight isnt as much of an issue as weight when it comes to shooting, up to a point. if youre humping a rifle for any real distance, a 9lb m4 gets heavy and bothersome the same as a 12lb m14. when you need either, the weight isnt an issue.

Even an M4 feels like shit after about 20km. Ever carried an M240B? I will take as light as possible, thank you very much.

I think the 2 rifle theory is completely unfeasible. To the best of my knowledge Big Army is still trying to figure out a gas operated 7.62x51 for platoon level and below. The M14 re-issue was very ill-conceived stop gap measure. The capability to have something at the platoon, or better yet, squad level that can punch bigger holes in tougher targets quickly, and has the ability to successfully engage point targets to 800m would be extremely useful. I think the move to standardize the M110 as the Army sniper rifle is a good step forward, but not really enough in my opinion.

I don't know who makes it, or even if something like this exists. KAC? LaRue? FN? The need is there though as far as I know. Albeit I have been an engineer and not a soldier for the past 4 years.

[wild_wild_wes]

I think the 2 rifle theory is completely unfeasible. To the best of my knowledge Big Army is still trying to figure out a gas operated 7.62x51 for platoon level and below. The capability to have something at the platoon, or better yet, squad level that can punch bigger holes in tougher targets quickly, and has the ability to successfully engage point targets to 800m would be extremely useful. I think the move to standardize the M110 as the Army sniper rifle is a good step forward, but not really enough in my opinion.

SOCOM is implementing 2-gun, with SCAR-H and Mk.20 Mod.0 SSR. Wether or not that would be a good solution for Big Army is another question. I'm not sure exactly how SOCOM uses the SCAR-H though.