BulletMagnet
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2009
- Messages
- 2
I dont think you could make it any clearer Sam. I call trolling. We should stop feeding them.
Battle Rifle Defined
- Thread starter Golden_006
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Naaah. Golden's no troll. And besides, it's often good to hash these things out once in a while. Lots of folks read these posts and it's good to plant nuggets of solid info wherever you can -- politely, and with reasoning and clarity to back them up. The "Errornet" needs all the help it can get...
He did make a classic blunder, though: It is dangerous to ask a "rhetorical question" here on THR!
You're either preaching to the choir, or in for a lengthy debate. LOL!-Sam
Uncle Mike
Member
Must accept detachable magazines, en-bloc clips, stripper device..other than found at Big Earls Happy Joint; able to fire ALL ammunition one is carrying...and his buddies ammunition, in sustained fire, without exhibiting more barrel droop that can be compensated for; must be chambered in a caliber that retains a minimum of two caliber designations that are different, but the same, and cannot be fired in same weapon; posses a caliber of ammunition that is considered to be combat effective by high ranking, non-combative, desk polishing, sushi eating, wine drinking personnel; caliber and or gauge must not be intimidating to personnel of different religion, race, sex or age; must have been considered for use by at least one self or world proclaimed military, legitimate or not; must cost tax payers 10 to 1 more than it is worth or cost to produce; parts must be able to be produced and complete combat ready unit must be able to be assembled in some working fashion by drunk monkeys; able to accept, lights, laser, cameras, action, night vision device, shotgun, grenade launcher, credit card swiper, egg poacher, electric shaver, coffee maker, curling iron, hair dryer, optics, disco ball, all super expensive proprietary, you gotta have this, mounts and devices considered and not considered by high ranking, non-combative, desk polishing, sushi eating, wine drinking personnel; must be light enough for the most feminine soldier to carry and heavy enough to instigate cursing and swearing by the most manly soldier; be able to be used as a jack handle; must function reliably while covered in or full of water, oil, fuel, sweat, spit, blood, vomit, urine, excrement(human or otherwise), beverage, plasma, other; protective coating must remain effective while covered in same; external protective coating must not allow the adhesion of bumper stickers, graffiti paint, crayon, magic marker or political posters with the exception of NRA propaganda; weapon 'must' posses an 'oh sh1t' switch; receiver and or bolt must utilize a safety device that is awkward to operate and cannot be operated by no more than 50% of its users reliably; utilize a 'sandy beach retention device'(bayonet lug); posses a muzzle device or flash hider that spreads the muzzle flash in no less than 5 directions and greatly enhances down range visibility of the location of the user; weapon must be loved by no less than 100% of all tacticool mall ninjas, 70% of private, non-combative citizens and 3% of soldiers using it in combat; weapon must be able to be converted to a politically correct configuration as defined by [ DELETED FROM PUBLIC VIEW ] politicians; weapon must posses the qualities of a good woman, able to be dropped, scratched, kicked, beat, thrown, dinged, punched, slapped, sworn at, spit on, driven over, submerged for extended periods, left in hot and or cold environments for extended periods and still poach your eggs and pour your coffee and fetch your beer; parts must have the 'mil-spec' designation loosly associated with them and weapon must have at least 20% of its actual parts, actually mil-spec; able to be fitted with forearms that resemble cheese graters; weapon MUST look like a porcupine with an erection... smiling at YOU!
This is a partial list of requirement for a particular weapon to be considered as a 'Battle Rifle'-
This is a partial list of requirement for a particular weapon to be considered as a 'Battle Rifle'-
Last edited:
Shadow Man
Member
^ Amen to that Sam!
And to that too Mike. True, and funny. Well done.
And to that too Mike. True, and funny. Well done.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Mike, tell me you did not just invent that list! Holy shiite, that is some funny stuff! I'd make that a .sig if it wasn't so long. Funniest thing this month!
Well done!
-Sam
Well done!
-Sam
Uncle Mike
Member
yea I did!... more...http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=456983&highlight=sniper+range
I often poke fun at customers when they come in all hyped up with SHTF visions, wanting to hang $1200 worth of junk on their AR because 'the military' has it!
It's all in fun...make us A LOT of money!
I often poke fun at customers when they come in all hyped up with SHTF visions, wanting to hang $1200 worth of junk on their AR because 'the military' has it!
It's all in fun...make us A LOT of money!
Last edited:
Jane's has long been considered the authoritative publication for things military, planes, ships, gun, etc. If anyone out there has access to "Jane's Infantry Weapons", I would put my money on their definition of a battle rifle. Just keep in mind, that there are those who will refuse to accept any contradiction of their view, no matter what.
Sheepdog1968
Member
From what I have read, a battle rifle typically refers to a 30 cal round though 7.62x39 doesn't meet the criteria as it's considered to not have enough powder behind it. Boston's Gun Bible and Jeff Cooper's Art of the Rifle goes into it in a bit more detail. The cartridges I typically see as battle rifle (BR) sometimes also called main battle rifle (MBR) are .30-06, 7.62x51 (aka 7.62 NATO), .308 Win, 7.62x54. In terms of USA weapons, the M1 Garand, M1A, M14, M14-semi auto, AR-10 all meet this criteria.
The BR has further range and better ability to pentrate cover, engine blocks, etc.
Lighter/smaller cartridges such as 5.56x45, .223 Rem, 7.62x39 are typically called carbines as well as a bunch of other terms.
I've read that even most military shootings take place at something like 70 yards so the extended range of the BR isn't as often needed. One pro often discussed is that a carbine allows you to carry more ammo for a given weight.
Having said all of this, I wouldn't want to get shot with any of them. I'd feel comfortable and adequately protected with any of the carbine or BR cartridges in a long rifle.
That's the stuff off of the top of my head. I hope it helps.
The BR has further range and better ability to pentrate cover, engine blocks, etc.
Lighter/smaller cartridges such as 5.56x45, .223 Rem, 7.62x39 are typically called carbines as well as a bunch of other terms.
I've read that even most military shootings take place at something like 70 yards so the extended range of the BR isn't as often needed. One pro often discussed is that a carbine allows you to carry more ammo for a given weight.
Having said all of this, I wouldn't want to get shot with any of them. I'd feel comfortable and adequately protected with any of the carbine or BR cartridges in a long rifle.
That's the stuff off of the top of my head. I hope it helps.
I'd be interested if anyone can find definitions for battle rifle, or assault rifle, or anything similar that date to before 1960. (It's generally accepted that "Assault Rifle" was invented later as an anti-gun propaganda term.)
I think the history goes something like this. From the invention of the modern rifle (US Civil war and later), there was an interest weapons effective at what we would consider pretty long range, say 300 yards and over. From this came the Springfield and all those Mausers. Although there was plenty of urban fighting in WWI and WWII, there was also a lot of fighting in rural Europe, and other places where range was desireable.
Until Vietnam. The war in Vietnam had a lower proportion fighting in open areas since the rural fighting was mostly in jungle. The Army went to the M-16 which was initially rated with an effective range less than 300 yards. Even the original M-16 was a carbine by M-14 standards, but eventually the Army went even farther with the M-4, which most everyone calls a carbine.
So, IMHO, the term "battle rifle" really means a service rifle that is not a carbine or not carbine-like, or is more powerful than a carbine. The other posters have given specifics which I accept as correct.
But to explain further, the reason that people are so precise and fervent in their definitions has nothing to do with military nomenclature, and everything to do with gun control politics. The notion is to draw tight lines around the term "assault rifle" so the taint associated with the term is applied to as few guns as possible. (I see the point, but I don't agree, mostly because just about every journalist and broadcaster is so careless that they apply the term to everything from a Hi-Point carbine to semi-auto 12 gauge, and they just don't care. I think it would be more effective to paste the term on everything and anything until it means nothing and loses it's power.)
I think the history goes something like this. From the invention of the modern rifle (US Civil war and later), there was an interest weapons effective at what we would consider pretty long range, say 300 yards and over. From this came the Springfield and all those Mausers. Although there was plenty of urban fighting in WWI and WWII, there was also a lot of fighting in rural Europe, and other places where range was desireable.
Until Vietnam. The war in Vietnam had a lower proportion fighting in open areas since the rural fighting was mostly in jungle. The Army went to the M-16 which was initially rated with an effective range less than 300 yards. Even the original M-16 was a carbine by M-14 standards, but eventually the Army went even farther with the M-4, which most everyone calls a carbine.
So, IMHO, the term "battle rifle" really means a service rifle that is not a carbine or not carbine-like, or is more powerful than a carbine. The other posters have given specifics which I accept as correct.
But to explain further, the reason that people are so precise and fervent in their definitions has nothing to do with military nomenclature, and everything to do with gun control politics. The notion is to draw tight lines around the term "assault rifle" so the taint associated with the term is applied to as few guns as possible. (I see the point, but I don't agree, mostly because just about every journalist and broadcaster is so careless that they apply the term to everything from a Hi-Point carbine to semi-auto 12 gauge, and they just don't care. I think it would be more effective to paste the term on everything and anything until it means nothing and loses it's power.)
Full length (Long Action) cartridges that have a capacity to take targets easily over 300 yards are typically classified as "Battle Rifles". Intermediate cartridges whose range ends at 300 yards are typically classified as "Assault Rifles". Long weapons firing pistol ammunition have in the past been classified as "Carbines" or "Sub-Machine Guns". Those are the definitions as I understand them.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Why yes. The "original" assault rifle was the Stg. 44. Originally designated as a machine pistol, supposedly Adolf Hitler himself coined the term "storm rifle" (that's Sturmgewehr) to describe it and its official designation was changed to that. "Storm" in this case being used in the sense of "storming the castle" -- not anything to do with weather. The direct translation is "assault." The Stg. nomenclature has been applied to various other military rifles and carbines since then. (Oddly enough, to the Austrian FAL variant, the Stg. 58 ... which is NOT an assault rifle.)
That's true of some folks in some situations. But it also is a pet peeve of a lot of THR members that people who should know better use very specific terms in sloppy and confusing ways. Just like when folks ask me what size their "rafters" should be when they mean the beams which support their floors, or if someone goes on and on about what a great car their F-150 is. Its jarring and can lead to confusion, when used among folks who understand the differences, and makes the speaker look distressingly uninformed.
-Sam
Last edited:
USSR
Member
Hmm, interesting conversation. And, I agree, the term "battle rifle" is clearly defined. Now, I will pose a question for you. How would you define the M1 Carbine? It is clearly not a battle rifle (not a full size, high power cartridge), yet it is not an assault rifle (not FA capable - M2 does not count). Probably the best description I have heard for it is PDW (personal defense weapon).
Don
Don
Golden_006
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 285
Yikes is appears Wikipedia has a very nice entry for battle rifle
For whatever reason it was hard for me understand how a 5 shot bolt gun like a Mauser, Springfield 03A3, and Mosin could have anything to do with an FN FAL. I would think a Ruger Mini with its hi cap detaching mags and semi auto makes it more like an FN FAL than Mauser therefore a better candidate for combat weapon. But what do i know. I guess I'll got get a Mini & a Mauser then . . .
For whatever reason it was hard for me understand how a 5 shot bolt gun like a Mauser, Springfield 03A3, and Mosin could have anything to do with an FN FAL. I would think a Ruger Mini with its hi cap detaching mags and semi auto makes it more like an FN FAL than Mauser therefore a better candidate for combat weapon. But what do i know. I guess I'll got get a Mini & a Mauser then . . .
Shadow Man
Member
It has everything to do with the caliber of the weapon, not necessarily its action. That's how a Springfield M1903 in .30'06 is on equal footing with a M1 Garand in .30'06, as far as battle rifle classification is concerned.
The Ruger Mini as a candidate for a combat weapon is about as absurd as Sarah Palin getting into the White House in 2012. Dissapointing, because I love both my Mini and Sarah, they are both good looking, but they have just got a horrible reputation.
At current AR prices, and current Mini prices, you would be better served getting a lower-end AR than you would a Mini.
The Ruger Mini as a candidate for a combat weapon is about as absurd as Sarah Palin getting into the White House in 2012. Dissapointing, because I love both my Mini and Sarah, they are both good looking, but they have just got a horrible reputation.
At current AR prices, and current Mini prices, you would be better served getting a lower-end AR than you would a Mini.
When it comes to specific weapons, history has a lot to do with it. If any nation of size had equipped an army with Mini-14s, it would be viewed differently.
One categorizes a Springfield 1903 with an M1 and an M-14 by looking at the role each served in its separate era. Each was the battle rifle of its time.
Cosmoline
Member
The term AFAIK was adopted after-the-fact as a way of categorizing the generation of full powered automatic or semiautomatic combat rifles and distinguishing them from the "assault rifles" firing intermediate rounds. If you expand the term to include every combat arm firing a full power cartridge then it really loses its utility. Whoever stuck that addition into the Wiki page hasn't come up with a citation to authority on it.
I have NOT seen the bolt action rifles described as "battle rifles" and I would regard that as error. I sometimes call them "war rifles," but they're not battle rifles. I believe a battle rifle needs to be at least semiautomatic and must be in a high power, not intermediate, chambering. That would include the SVT-40, the Garand, the FN-49, FN-FAL, etc. But it would not include Mosins, Enfields, Springfields, Mausers and the like.
This definition clearly and concisely applies to a historically distinct and significant group of rifles. It is a useful definition. A definition based SOLELY on the power of the cartridge is so broad as to be essentially useless.
Then "battle rifle" is just another way of saying high-powered military rifle going all the way back to the Krag or even the Trapdoor. It would include literally HUNDREDS of bolt and straight-pull designs from the Mauser to the Schmidt-Rubin to the Arisaka. To prevent this the definition should be limited by ACTION as well. The battle rifle is defined by the combination of self-cycling "automatic" action and full powered cartridge. That gives you a nicely distinct category ranging from the Garand to the M-14 and FN-FAL. It also defines the historical era from the 1930's to the 1960's where this type of rifle emerged, rose to prominence and was gradually phased out in favor of lighter weight intermediate-power assault rifles.
Then we'd have to agree on how to define "carbine," and you want to talk about a can of worms!
I have NOT seen the bolt action rifles described as "battle rifles" and I would regard that as error. I sometimes call them "war rifles," but they're not battle rifles. I believe a battle rifle needs to be at least semiautomatic and must be in a high power, not intermediate, chambering. That would include the SVT-40, the Garand, the FN-49, FN-FAL, etc. But it would not include Mosins, Enfields, Springfields, Mausers and the like.
This definition clearly and concisely applies to a historically distinct and significant group of rifles. It is a useful definition. A definition based SOLELY on the power of the cartridge is so broad as to be essentially useless.
Then "battle rifle" is just another way of saying high-powered military rifle going all the way back to the Krag or even the Trapdoor. It would include literally HUNDREDS of bolt and straight-pull designs from the Mauser to the Schmidt-Rubin to the Arisaka. To prevent this the definition should be limited by ACTION as well. The battle rifle is defined by the combination of self-cycling "automatic" action and full powered cartridge. That gives you a nicely distinct category ranging from the Garand to the M-14 and FN-FAL. It also defines the historical era from the 1930's to the 1960's where this type of rifle emerged, rose to prominence and was gradually phased out in favor of lighter weight intermediate-power assault rifles.
Then we'd have to agree on how to define "carbine," and you want to talk about a can of worms!
Last edited:
Sheepdog1968
Member
To answer your question, the M1 carbine was designed to be a substitue for the 1911 pistol. Given the slightly longer radius means its a bit easier to aim. In terms of power, I've heard of the cartridge often compared to a 357 magnum. Though you can shoot further, it's practical limit is somewhere between 50 and 100 yards. I'm sure Wikipedia has lots of good info about it as well as the definition of what a carbine is as well. I'd call it a carbine as well in a world in which the choice of terms is kept at battle rifle, carbine/assualt rifle, pistol.
Golden_006
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 285
Hmmm. I admit I don't know much firearms or military history but I do know this much: palin has 0 chance at the white house and a quick search on this site reveals some of junk rifles that the Taliban/their allies are using aginst the US.
Ruger is that much of plink toy that you prefer a 5 round bolt gun if it ever came down to it?
I can't have an AR and Garand seems like a hassle for someon
Last edited:
nastynatesfish
Member
you have to figure in the fal. I haven't seen one post yet for it. it is a nato round and the 308 hase all the field range you could need and the weight to get the job done. I love my fal/cetme also. not to mention its called a battle rifle. you can have it tore down in 2 minutes and back together. if the **** did happen what do you think would be the most available or easily ''recovered'' round...thats a battle rifle
Shadow Man
Member
Golden...that was my point. They both have zero chance at their respective goals. It's not that the Ruger is "that much of a plink toy" it's that I highly doubt that the Ruger could handle the stresses it would be subject to in a combat-like scenario. So yes, if it came right down to it and I had to choose between, lets use your examples, a Ruger Mini and a Moisin Nagant, I would unequivocally choose the Nagant, with a healthy supply of stripper clips and the knowledge of how to use them.
There is a story that I can no longer find that detailed Marines in the Pacific during WWII who had taken their M1903's and machined BAR magazines to them, so it was now a 20rd fixed magazine bolt-action. These Marines were so good at working the bolt and keeping up steady, aimed fire, that the attacking Japanese thought they had encountered multiple automatic weapons. A good bolt gun, in the right hands, is down right fearsome.
I'd love to know how you see the Garand as a hassle...
There is a story that I can no longer find that detailed Marines in the Pacific during WWII who had taken their M1903's and machined BAR magazines to them, so it was now a 20rd fixed magazine bolt-action. These Marines were so good at working the bolt and keeping up steady, aimed fire, that the attacking Japanese thought they had encountered multiple automatic weapons. A good bolt gun, in the right hands, is down right fearsome.
I'd love to know how you see the Garand as a hassle...
TexasPatriot.308
Member
lots of good choices for a "battle rifle" depending situation, surroundings, etc. too many factors to determine, desert warfare, urban, jungle?? I dont think there is one "battle universal battle rifle"
Shadow Man
Member
The FN FAL was called the "Right arm of the Free World" for years. It seemed to do desert, urban, and jungle all pretty well. So did the Garand...
The H&K 417 and the LWRC REPR look pretty nice to me as well...a 7.62x51 with a 10in barrel can be fairly accurate out to 500yds...if the target is beyond that, then I can relocate.
The H&K 417 and the LWRC REPR look pretty nice to me as well...a 7.62x51 with a 10in barrel can be fairly accurate out to 500yds...if the target is beyond that, then I can relocate.
Maverick223
Member
Sam, you never give up do you? I applaud your persistence and accurate translation.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I really believe the term is broader than this. I'd agree that there was no reason to use the term before the advent of the assault rifle as the primary infantry weapon, but I do consider it useful to describe what ever full-power, full-sized rifled long arm was issued as the primary infantry weapon by a military.
Again, short of an acceptable "authoritative" definition (I suppose Jane's would do, but I don't have access to it) it is hard to make a conclusive case of which set of rifles the term includes. You feel that it only covers semis. I say it covers all full-sized infantry rifles. Without an unimpeachable source for the proper definition, we can't reach an agreement.
Absolutely. That's the way I see it. As a term to distinguish the kinds of arms that militaries issued before all switched to assault rifles through the 50s and 60s.
I agree that such a definition is useful, but I just don't agree that it is accurate. Perhaps we can find an authoritative definition somewhere and answer the question.
Not a can of worms, just another very broad category. Generally a rifle or musket of shorter stature than its general contemporaries, sometimes derived from a longer arm, and sometimes a standard design. Sometimes chambered in a cartridge or loading that's less powerful than a full power round. The category of carbines would cover a lot of long arms, both military and "civilian," from early muskets, the Spencer carbine (and others) of the Civil War era, many of the Henry and Winchester lever-actions, the M1 Carbine (obviously), and all of the modern Assault Rifles.
-Sam
I was in the Army in 1968. I trained on the M-14 and in infantry AIT,the M-16. The term used was "service rifle". It was not until recent years that I herad the term Battle Rifle.I have spoken to several SF soldiers and the term Battle Rifle is not used. Byron
- Status
