Battle Rifle Defined

[Golden_006]

I don't get this whole "not a battle rifle" thing when it comes to certain guns; even an AR.

What's a battle rifle to you then?

Just because some third world guerrillas use AK47 to me doesn't prove all that much. Most of these individuals can't read and couldn't read the booklet to take the thing apart and clean it/ don't have the technical skills to do it/ can't be bothered; so the AK is their rifle. Not to mention they are more readily available and they are cheaper than some American firearms.

To me however that doesn't mean that it's any more or less a battle rifle than some of the others. All it means is that rifle hasn't been given a chance, and the other is "battle proven" as they say on the military channel.

Really I just saw a post that said not only is a Ruger Mini not a battle rifle but neither is an AR15. How do you define what is or isn't a battle rifle?

 

[Sam1911]

You're applying the term too broadly. It's very well-defined:

A battle rifle is a full-size rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the German 7.92x57mm IS, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. While 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 AR-10, or the M14, this term can also include older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant or the M1 Garand.

It has a lot to do with the cartridge the rifle chambers. As warfare has changed, large, heavy guns firing powerful cartridges that are effective at extended ranges have given way to light carbines that fire a less powerful cartridge which is (more) controllable in full-auto fire and seen as sufficient to incapacitate the enemy at the closer ranges at which most soldiers engage each other. These carbines, largely seen to have begun with the German Stg.44, are what we've come to know and love as "assault rifles." And they hold the middle ground between true battle rifles and the pistol-caliber sub machine guns.

Thus, an M-16/M-4, or an AKM, AK-74, AUG, FAMAS, or other short, light, select-fire carbine shooting the 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, or other "intermediate" cartridge is an Assault Rifle, not a Battle Rifle.

While there is some cross-over (what about a .308 Saiga/Kalashnikov? Or the much anticipated 7.62x54R version?) it isn't all just a matter of personal opinion.

-Sam

 

[Golden_006]

Oh I didn't know that. Why would anyone bother posting that a Kel Tech or AR is not a battle rifle when we all know that it fires .223

 

[Sam1911]

Why? I'd have to see the context of the statement, but as a guess I'd say that someone was looking to make a snide comment to convey their opinion about the ineffectiveness of these "wussy poodle-shooter mouse guns" that no self-respecting he-man would want to carry into battle when you could lug a 15-lb. wood & steel weapon shooting a hard-kicking round at half the capacity. Or words to that effect.

So you'll see, "yeah, well the M-16 is fine to give to the latrine guards at the supply depot, but it's NO BATTLE RIFLE!" LOL!

-Sam

 

[bowtecbowhunter]

battle rifles

I would consider any rifle a "BATTLE RIFLE" as long as I would be willing to carry it into battle and let my life depend on whether it fails or not, I have a mac90 I would consider a "BATTLE RIFLE" because of how I've defined it but also sam1911 defined it.

 

[SSN Vet]

the M-16 is fine to give to the latrine guards at the supply depot, but it's NO BATTLE RIFLE!"

now that's funny

 

[wishin]

While not a popular definition, any rifle that has been widely used in combat is a battle rifle! Good, bad or otherwise.

 

[Sam1911]

I appreciate what some of you are saying about "any rifle used in battle" but that's akin to saying, "Any car that's ever raced another is a 'race car'."

There actually IS a specific definition and I think we should use it correctly.

We all howl when folks apply the term "assault rifle" incorrectly to semi-auto only AR-15s and AK clones. We should try to be as precise as possible.

-Sam

 

[Norinco982lover]

I would consider Sam1911's definition correct.

It is a large caliber rifle that if effective and extended ranges.

I would also consider a Saiga .308 a battle rifle (and I plan on getting one as soon as I can!).

~Norinco

 

[leadaddict]

A battle rifle is a full-size rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the German 7.92x57mm IS, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. While 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 AR-10, or the M14, this term can also include older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant or the M1 Garand.

Did I miss where this quote came from? A quote is only as good as its source.

 

[M2 Carbine]

A battle rifle is a full-size rifle designed for military use that fires a high-power rifle cartridge such as the U.S. .30-06 Springfield, the German 7.92x57mm IS, the Russian 7.62x54mmR, or the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. While 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 AR-10, or the M14, this term can also include older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant or the M1 Garand.

Thus, an M-16/M-4, or an AKM, AK-74, AUG, FAMAS, or other short, light, select-fire carbine shooting the 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, or other "intermediate" cartridge is an Assault Rifle, not a Battle Rifle.

There actually IS a specific definition and I think we should use it correctly.

We all howl when folks apply the term "assault rifle" incorrectly to semi-auto only AR-15s and AK clones. We should try to be as precise as possible.

All correct.

Calling a Assault Rifle a Battle rifle is like calling a Magazine a Clip. It's not a big deal but it's incorrect.

Just because a rifle has been used in "battle" doesn't make it a Battle Rifle.
The M1 Carbine saw a lot of combat but I've never heard anyone refer to it as a Battle Rifle. If anything the M2 was one of the first Assault Rifles.

 

[Golden_006]

So all that means is the term "battle rifle" means nothing. I'd rather go into battle with any semi-automatic rifle including a Ruger Mini than a mosin-nagant, or a Mauser, or any other old Bolt "battle rifle"; especially considering now that you can have a high capacity magazine for one. Wouldn't you?

I thought battle rifle had something to do with whether or not it was capable of being fired for hours at a time without melting or something.

 

[Sam1911]

So all that means is the term "battle rifle" means nothing.

How do you figure that? "All that means," is that the term "battle rifle" specifically defines the characteristcs of a certain type of infantry long arm.

High powered rifle cartridge, full-sized rifle (rather than a carbine), designed for/issued by a military.

Whether YOU would want to carry one into a war zone really doesn't enter into it. And, while the ability to be fired a lot without melting doesn't specifically appear in the definition, the fact that the rifle was adopted by a military, presumably after extensive trials, kind of covers that.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

Did I miss where this quote came from? A quote is only as good as its source.

I pulled that particular version of the definition off of wiki, because it was convienient and, more importantly, because it's correct.

Another good source is always: http://world.guns.ru/main-e.htm

Look to the menu on the left and you'll see the various classes of rifle listed as clickable links. (Note: the author is Russian and lists the battle rifle section simply as "military" rifles, though his whole site is devoted to military rifles.) Each link will take you to an exhaustive list (with pics and spec pages) of the various battle rifles, assault rifles, submachine guns, machine guns, sniper rifles, etc. fielded by the different military forces of the world. Great site!

-Sam

 

[M2 Carbine]

So all that means is the term "battle rifle" means nothing.

It means something to people that know guns.

A M1 Garand is a Battle Rifle.
The M16 is a Assault Rifle.
The AR and Mini 14 are neither, they are semi automatic rifles.

 

[Golden_006]

Ok fair enough on the battle rifle thing. I'll just call it a "combat rifle"

What would you rather have in battle: a Ruger Mini or Mosin Nagant?

 

[Norinco982lover]

Ok fair enough on the battle rifle thing. I'll just call it a "combat rifle"

What would you rather have in battle: a Ruger Mini or Mosin Nagant?

Depends on the situation Long distance? A Mosin. Hand to hand? A Mosin (love that bayonet). Anything in the middle--Ruger Mini.

~Norinco

 

[M2 Carbine]

What would you rather have in battle: a Ruger Mini or Mosin Nagant?

I'd rather have the M1 Garand I was issued in 1956.

But of the two above, I owned a Mini 14 (never will again).
I never shot a Mosin Nagant.
I do own the 03A3 and 03A4.
I'd rather have the 03 than the Mini 14 any day.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok fair enough on the battle rifle thing. I'll just call firearms that you would go into battle with a "combat rifle"

Fair enough, indeed, but ... if you call a Ruger Mini-14/30 a "combat rifle" folks are going to look at you like your head's screwed on about 10 degrees out of plumb.

An even more correct way to say it is either "military rifle" for assault rifles, main battle rifles, and others that have been adopted by and designed for a military, and "military style semi-automatic rifle" for things like AR-15s or civilian versions of AKMs and AK-74s. They're similar to, and sometimes built from parts kits off of a military rifle, but they're substantively different. (Funny aside: an SKS is a military rifle. A civilian semi-auto AKM is not.)

And then there are simply "semi-automatic rifles" like the Mini-14/30, commercial BARs, Remington 7400, and other rifles neither built for nor every fielded by a military.

What would you rather have in battle: a Ruger Mini or Mosin Nagant?

What battle, where, against whom, what decade or even century? Wouldn't really have wanted to fight the siege of Stalingrad with a Mini-14. Might not want to clear houses in Fallujah with a Mosin 91/30.

The Mini-14 never got a chance to prove its worth in combat. The Mosin certainly did, and performed admirably -- but it's day has passed. Modern military rifles don't really seem to be trending towards either.

-Sam

 

[PT1911]

As far as mosin vs mini.... gonna say the mosin for sure as I just plain dont like the mini. Functionally speaking however I wouldnt go with either. I am currently loving the PTR 91 (G3) design. I would choose it or the AR style....possibly the AK depending on the situation as well... The mosin, for all its indestrictability and accuracy at range, is just too cumbersome (along with the Garand.) The mini.... well AK in its place... thanks.

 

[leadaddict]

Sam1911 - Thank you for the follow-up and link.

 

[Golden_006]

It's too generic a term "battle rifle" for it to mean anything and the definition is too inconsistant if you ask me. A Winchester 94 shoots a bigger cartridge than an AR 15. A Ruger Mini 30 shoots a bigger round . . .

It was really a rhetorical question . . . since i would think in most circumstances in a present war zone situation you only get to bring one gun since carrying 2 is too many and Mini would be better for fighting 100 years:300 yard fights -- which you'd be doing most of the time i figure in a present day war zone -- than would aforementioned and official older bolt 'battle rifles."

 

[highorder]

It's too generic a term "battle rifle" for it to mean anything and the definition is too inconsistant if you ask me.

Listen to sam, because he is correct.

There actually IS a specific definition and I think we should use it correctly.

High powered rifle cartridge, full-sized rifle (rather than a carbine), designed for/issued by a military.

We all howl when folks apply the term "assault rifle" incorrectly to semi-auto only AR-15s and AK clones. We should try to be as precise as possible.

-Sam

 

[Sam1911]

It's too generic a term "battle rifle" for it to mean anything and the definition is too inconsistant if you ask me.

It is a definition that covers a lot of different rifles, but it is not inconsistant. It is only inconsistant if you apply it randomly to include whatever rifle or carbine you happen to feel should be included. (i.e: inconsistant only if you use it inconsistantly)

A Winchester 94 shoots a bigger cartridge than an AR 15. A Ruger Mini 30 shoots a bigger round . . .

You are correct. But neither of those three is a battle rifle. The fact that an M-16 shoots a lower-powered round than a .30-30 is part of, or indicative of, what makes it an assault rifle, not a battle rifle.

-Sam

 

[Shadow Man]

How is the definition "too inconsistant"? The four generally accepted battle rifle cartridges were listed...and I don't recall the .30-30 round making the list. While it is an admirable cartridge, and does duty with me around my land, it is not a military round. It's range is too short, and it is a round nose design for use in a tubular magazine fed rifle: the military stopped using round nose rifle bullets in 1906...

The Ruger Mini 30 fires a 7.62x39mm round. Another admirable round, but also one that did not make the list of generally accepted battle rifle rounds. The 7.62x39mm round is an intermediate round, meaning it has less powder capacity than a full-size rifle round. Battle rifles fire full-size rifle rounds, so any weapon firing an intermediate round is not a battle rifle...

Son, look; rhetorical questions are a waste of time. If you already know the answer, don't ask! But if you are curious about current military trends and tactics, then you are probaly not in the service, so listen up when one of the members tells you something and don't dismiss it off hand because it doesn't fit into your pre-concieved notion of how it should be. For example: A; I have never carried fewer than two weapons in an active zone, and sometimes as many as three! (Rifle, pistol, breaching shotgun) B; I'm going to disregard the "100 years" bit, because that has me confused, but no, you're wrong. Most fighting does not take place at 300 yards. It takes place at 0yds to the maximum range of my weapons, and beyond, aka 600-700yds. Combat zones are highly fluid places, Golden. Your targets are not stationary at 300yds, and we don't form up into neat little squares anymore either. So please, for your own sake, stop figuring what we do in combat zones, and ask someone who knows.