"Battle Rifle" vs. "Precision Rifle"

[broylz]

The difference between 8 pounds, and 12 pounds is an increase of 150% in weight...

That is a whole lot....


Don't pretend to be all tough and everything... If you carry an 8 pound rifle, I promise you that you will be looking to cut that down to 7 pounds 15 ounces if you have the chance...


When you are dead tired, the difference of a pound or two could make the difference between being able to make a shot, and missing a shot...

im not pretending to be tough. im just coming from 10 years of military experience with a couple years humping a m249 saw through the desert and mountains overseas. i also prefer a m14 as my go-to rifle. i personally dont see the weight difference as that much of an issue. like i said above, that rule applies to an extent as i readily admit the m240 is pretty cumbersome but between the m4 and m14, not as much difference.

to each their own choice but i see anything less than 12lbs is ok.

[Cameron]

The difference between 8 pounds, and 12 pounds is an increase of 150% in weight

It is actually only a 50% increase, and carrying a heavier rifle never bothered me it was the armour and batteries and water and helmet... I have carried an FAL for several days at a time and while it was a PITA it was not really that much more of a PITA than a 16" AR. Good slings help a lot.

I have been thinking about the same thing is regard to a 7.62 NATO rifle and I think it makes sense to have it for the role like the designated marksman, a little more magnification and clarity in the optic and a little more accuracy capability from the barrel.

I think I have settled on the idea of an LMT MWS and having the 16" chrome lined barrel cut to 13" and getting a second 18" SS barrel for it. If I could get only one barrel it would be the 16" or 18" SS barrel. After all barrels are relatively cheap compared to ammunition, even the expensive LMT MWS replacement barrels.

Cameron

[Belmont31R]

The issue becomes when you add an optic, light, loaded mag, laser, and a pez dispenser the weight quickly climbs up into the 12-13lb category. If you start off with a 7-8lb gun the weight only climbs into the 9-10lb category.




I am sure the posters here have the dexterity of a mountain goat and the carrying capacity of a mule when it comes to humping loads around but I prefer to be as light weight as possible while still obtaining the needed functionality. At the end of the day its less load on your shoulders and less fatigue.

[TehLlama]

I do think that with the flexible variable optics a battle rifle can be a significantly more effective rifle at range, but I do agree that once that boundary starts to blur (heavier contour barrel, higher magnification glass, heavier stock, bipod) the ability to run and gun with it starts to go downhill very quickly: about the practical limit where rifles seem to retain their desirable battle rifle qualities is with just a light (and/or ITAL) and a single optic (low powered variable or fixed).

There are some rifles that bridge that gap fairly well, but the result seems to be that they're okay at both and great at neither... and most of the folks with the bankroll to run and gun with 7.62 wind up buying two that are more specialized.

[Shane45]

I think there is a convergence afoot with what I like to call the broad spectrum rifle. Its been my pursuit to have to 0 a 700 yd rifle capable of dealing with whatever gets thrown at it. My 308 patter AR is the same weight and length as most of my 5.56 ar's and are within a pound of my really light ones. It is hovering around a .6 moa rifle so far. Im exceptionally happy with it. My times in close fire drills are VERY close to my times with 5.56. I had the 2nd fastest run in a practical rifle match with the 308 in a sea of 5.56 rifles. In fact most didnt know I was running a 308 until they observed the big difference in the reaction of the 100yd steel hanging plate.

[jonconsiglio]

My SCAR H with a T1, 3x magnifier mount, a scout light and a Tango Down vert grip weighs hardly any more than any of my ARs equipped similarly. I think it's about 9 pounds with those accessories, which is a few POUNDS less than an MWS, for example.

Seeing as people complain about the difference between a lightweight barrel and standard/govt profile, which is about a 5 OUNCE difference, a few pounds is a huge deal when you're carrying your rifle for long periods of time or continually running drills and coming from a low ready.

Since my SCAR H is about a 1.5 MOA gun with match ammo and someone other than me behind the trigger, I'm very willing to accept that half MOA difference between some of the more accurate battle rifles.

Hootiewho had his SCAR H cut to 13" by Mrvin Pitts and it's now a 1 MOA rifle with match ammo. Since most of my shooting is from some sort of makeshift support like a tree or car door, having a heavier rifle that won't really shoot any more accurately isn't important to me.

The funny thing is that the SCAR H being a few pounds lighter actually has less recoil, TO ME, than my REPR did or the SR25 I have a good bit of time behind. It also has less recoil than the MWS, but I don't have as much time behind that as I do the others. Also, it's the accurate first round hit that matters most to me with this type of rifle and for that, the SCAR H delivers.

There are some here that will swear by the MWS for example, even though they don't own one and that may be the perfect choice for them. But, we always need to look at what each person does with the rifle they 'endorse'. For example, if one does absolutely nothing more than lay on the ground taking videos of themselves does their opinion really matter to those that actually train with their weapons? I use mine for hunting and an occasional training class plus I'll shoot some groups now and then for the hell of it. I don't use it at work since I stick with 5.56. So, my needs are very different than the guy that likes to shoot little groups for pleasure.

Not saying there's anything wrong with that, in general and as long as if that's the only thing that poster does that they then stay in there lane and don't try telling someone what they need when it comes to work, training, home defense, hunting or really any other use that involves anything but laying on a blanket.

Not that anyone on this forum would ever step out of their lane and try to tell others (especially when some of the others are professionals) what they do or do not need...

I bought my SCARs when they were first released. Had the Predatar been available when the SCAR H was released, I may very well have ended up with that one. The regular OBR is great, by the way, just a bit heavy for my needs.

[wild_wild_wes]

Interesting responses! Here are the more cogent ones, condensed:

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. Mass issued rifles should be able to take a little neglect which is also detrimental to precision in most cases. 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.

Good point! A "battle rifle" would have a higher rate of fire than a precision rifle. Do the higher-end SS barrels still have this problem though?

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.

Sounds like you vote for the two-rifle solution...both 7.62, but different configurations: Battle rifle and Precision rifle.

I have been thinking about the same thing is regard to a 7.62 NATO rifle and I think it makes sense to have it for the role like the designated marksman, a little more magnification and clarity in the optic and a little more accuracy capability from the barrel.

So, where do you come down on the issue? Battle rifle or precision rifle? A DM rifle is more of a Precision set-up, I'm thinking.

The issue becomes when you add an optic, light, loaded mag, laser, and a pez dispenser the weight quickly climbs up into the 12-13lb category. If you start off with a 7-8lb gun the weight only climbs into the 9-10lb category.

Well, the pez dispener is essential equipment...

I do think that with the flexible variable optics a battle rifle can be a significantly more effective rifle at range, but I do agree that once that boundary starts to blur (heavier contour barrel, higher magnification glass, heavier stock, bipod) the ability to run and gun with it starts to go downhill very quickly. There are some rifles that bridge that gap fairly well, but the result seems to be that they're okay at both and great at neither... and most of the folks with the bankroll to run and gun with 7.62 wind up buying two that are more specialized.

Another vote for the two-rifle solution?

My 308 patter AR is the same weight and length as most of my 5.56 ar's and are within a pound of my really light ones. It is hovering around a .6 moa rifle so far. Im exceptionally happy with it. My times in close fire drills are VERY close to my times with 5.56. I had the 2nd fastest run in a practical rifle match with the 308 in a sea of 5.56 rifles. In fact most didnt know I was running a 308 until they observed the big difference in the reaction of the 100yd steel hanging plate.

Specs?

Seeing as people complain about the difference between a lightweight barrel and standard/govt profile, which is about a 5 OUNCE difference, a few pounds is a huge deal when you're carrying your rifle for long periods of time or continually running drills and coming from a low ready. Since my SCAR H is about a 1.5 MOA gun with match ammo and someone other than me behind the trigger, I'm very willing to accept that half MOA difference between some of the more accurate battle rifles.

Accuracy potential...that is the big issue. Where does the line need to be drawn? Don't most AR10 type rifles with FF barrels group at least in the 2 MOA range?

[jonconsiglio]

Accuracy potential...that is the big issue. Where does the line need to be drawn? Don't most AR10 type rifles with FF barrels group at least in the 2 MOA range?

Sorry if I didn't clarify that enough...what I meant was I'm willing to accept the SCAR H being a 1.5 MOA rifle with the most accurate ammunition and precision optic once I'm saving a couple pounds over other 7.62 semi autos that may be 1 MOA rifles with the best ammunition and precision optic.


That half MOA, give or take, means very little to me seeing as 95% or more of my shooting with these rifles is for some reason other than straight groups. So, unless I'm specifically shooting for groups using the best ammo and precision optic and some sort of advanced rest, I'm never going to see the accuracy difference between a SCAR H, Predatar, MWS or REPR, for example.

So, that couple pounds that I'll feel every single time I pick up the rifle far outweighs the slight difference in accuracy that I might see once every few months at the most....and I take my 7.62 out at least once every week or so.

Again, this is just for me and the way I use my rifles.

Oh, and I tried the three rifle 7.62 solution here with the REPR, SCAR H and a 700. And again under normal circumstances I never saw any difference in accuracy between the two semiautos and hardly any difference with the 700 when fired from anything but the bench.

[Shane45]

Published weight is 8lbs 5 ounces but the stock I have is a bit less then the factory supplied one so Id say its right at about 8lbs with just the BUIS on there.

[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.