Battle Rifle Defined

[happygeek]

I've never heard anyone call something a battle rifle, but then again I've never heard anyone call their M4 an assault rifle. I have heard certain hobbyists call their issued M4 a AR or a evil black rifle. I have never heard anyone but myself refer to a M9 as a Beretta. Mostly I hear machine gun, rifle, or pistol used to describe any particular military weapon.

 

[cz85cmbt]

Good god this is getting dumb. Sam has it 100%. It is a term that you can debate its application or even its need for existence, but you cannot debate it's current definition, and byron, sf guys don't care what they are called, they are tools in their tool box, and probably don't talk too much on the application of a battle rifle vs the application of an assault rifle, they are too busy killing people and doing cool #%*#. I might add that the term BR also implies the use of iron sights and with an optic it becomes a DMR which is a relatively new term but that could be a whole other ridiculous post.

 

[Isher]

My main battle rifle is a semiautomatic .22 WMR.

With hollowpoints.

'Course, I fill the hollowpoints with Curare.

That, and my throwing stars will

See me through anything.

TIC


isher

 

[Byron]

Hi CZ, I have had the rare opportunity to talk with several SF troops. I am an old grunt from Nam 68-69 4th Inf Div.Their fathers are friends of mine and I watched each grow up.When they decided to join the Army, I counseled them on what war is. They are fine men. While I do not ask them of their missions,they talk freely to me about many things.When they leave our Nation, I know it and keep each on my prayers. Byron

 

[Golden_006]

I don't know why I want the Mini to be more than what it is - maybe it's my
formative years having a big dose of A-team
in them.

I have no confidence going garand shopping . . . I've seem this rifle at a gun show for 600 dollars but realize that condition may have to do with it which I'm uninitiated with - not to mention cleaning and difficult to find ammo. Seems easier to buy a ruger than deal with all the aforementioned or getting cmp card or whatever and wait 3 months. Shoot that sounds to me like what you have to go through to get an NYC rifle permit.

Not to beat a dead horse here but the Sam analogies seems a little off base. Palin will not be anywhere Near the white house just like a Honda civic will not be seen on a race track but we have
seen guns far inferior to mini on battlefields including homemade pos guns with no sights on combat zones. Not to mention a quick google search shows
how to convert a mini to fully auto. If you're going to argue a modified Springfield mag then my argument goes to ( not to mention the ruger comes with the 20 mags). Although I here you it's purpose is not combat

 

[happygeek]

Like I said, I haven't heard team guys getting hung up on terms. However, as cz85cmbt said, that doesn't change the dictionary definition of battle rifle. Assault rifle also has a dictionary definition, so does a sub machine gun, machine pistol, machine gun (sub broken down into light, medium, and heavy), etc. Legally speaking, you have handguns, rifles, and shotguns. These dictionary definitions/distinctions do matter because otherwise the VPC would just call every black rifle a machine gun, and how would you call them on it?

Honestly, the quickest and easiest way I've found to show fence sitters/normal people that the anti-gunners don't know what the f*ck they're talking about is to point them at a dictionary. Only takes a few minutes to show them the definition of a machine gun and an assault rifle (and that the term "assault weapon" only exists in the media and VPC speak) and then they can see for themselves how mis-leading the Brady Bunch, VPC, et al are.

(Well, they might not intentionally be acting in a mis-leading manner, they might just be dumb. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, I try to be a nice guy.)

 

[happygeek]

If anybody has a little time on their hands (Lord knows I do right now), and isn't familiar with the VPC, here's some stuff that'll have you not knowing whether to laugh or cry:

Bullet Hoses
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons�What Are They? What's So Bad About Them?
http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosecont.htm

Assault Weapons and Accessories in America
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm

According to the VPC

Assault firearms are semi-automatic (firing one bullet per trigger pull) and fully automatic (the weapon will keep on firing as long as the trigger is depressed) anti-personnel rifles, shotguns, and handguns that are designed primarily for military and law enforcement use.

So the M1911 and the M1 Garand are assault weapons?

The 2nd "study" is a little longer and more in depth and contains these gems:

Assault weapons�just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms�are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons�anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun�can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Although the opportunity to restrict assault weapons exists, a question remains for the handgun restriction movement: How? Defining an assault weapon�in legal terms�is not easy. It's not merely a matter of going after guns that are "black and wicked looking." Although those involved in the debate know the weapons being discussed, it's extremely difficult to develop a legal definition that restricts the availability of assault weapons without affecting legitimate semi-automatic guns. Most likely, any definition would focus on magazine capacity, weapon configuration, muzzle velocity, the initial purpose for which the weapon (or its full-auto progenitor) was developed, convertibility, and possible sporting applications. Any law based on this definition would, however, need to have a clause to excuse legitimate semi-automatic weapons that would inadvertently fall under it. And although legislation could be passed that would ban specific weapons, the world's arms manufacturers are expert at producing weapons that follow the letter, but not the intent, of the law. This often results in products that are virtually identical to the restricted weapon, yet different enough to remain on the market.

 

[happygeek]

Quick thought, according to the VPC's definition, my wife's Walther P22 is the only firearm we own that's not an "assault weapon".

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I think we're overlooking the key issue of who exactly is defining "battle rifle"?


To the best of my knowledge, it's a term used amongst shooting enthusiasts with little to no currency amongst military/LEO types, other than the small portion of mil/LEO folks who also happen to be shooting enthusiasts. There have been shooting enthusiasts who certainly know their stuff who use the term (particularly Jeff Cooper), but it's still basically a "hobbyist term of general consensus in the niche" than any kind of "official" term.


Also, as some folks noted above, it's basically a "retronym", in that the term wasn't really needed until a new generation of items came along and a distinction had to be made. Not unlike "acoustic guitar", which only came into existence after "electric guitar" became common and just "guitar" was as likely to refer to the latter as the former.

 

[Candiru]

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.

I see a lot of people opine that they don't consider the Mini-14 as durable enough for combat. Why is that?

 

[Ignition Override]

Candiru: Enjoyed reading your website.
I've read comments that the Mini 14 was used in some sort of endurance tests with the ARs etc, and heat build-up caused failure in the Mini 14's action.

Could my MN 44 and Lee-Enfield #4 and #5s be correctly described as "former battle rifles", but only in previous wars due to the fact that they were designed/produced long ago?

 

[happygeek]

I certainly agree it's probably a "retronym". Used to be there were submachine guns and there were rifles. Then, someone had the bright idea of taking their 7.92x57mm cartridge and making the 7.92x33mm, aka the 7.92 kurz, and putting it in a lighter weight shorter selective fire magazine fed rifle.

Once most other countries did similar, a term was needed to define the new type of rifle. Of course, a term was also needed for the old type. Hence, battle rifle and assault rifle. Like I said, I've never heard anyone in the military who's not a hobbyist use those terms; I've only heard the terms rifle or long gun used.

Someone said they'd try to check Janes for an authoritative definition of the term battle rifle. Or, we could just use the VPC's "dictionary" and call all automatics a machine gun, all semi-autos an assault weapon, and all bolt actions a purpose built sniping weapon of war.

 

[Shadow Man]

but we have
seen guns far inferior to mini on battlefields including homemade pos guns with no sights on combat zones. Not to mention a quick google search shows how toconvert a mini to fully auto. If you're going to argued a mod Springfield mag then my argument goes to ( not to mention the ruger comes with the 20 mags). Although I here you it's purpose is not combat

I'd love your source on "homemade pos guns with no sights" being in a combat zone. And if you want to break a load of really good laws, and a fair bit of common sense to make your Mini fully automatic, be my guest. My purpose behind mentioning the Springfield was to show that a simple bolt action rifle can be just as effective as a semi-automatic rifle, in the right hands.

I have never been renowned for my patience, and what little I had is now gone. If you want to dismiss the Garand, go for it. If you want to use a Mini, go for it. Whatever makes you happy. I am certain that you have never been within a mile of a combat zone, because your pre-concieved notions of what one is like are all far off the mark. However, if you want to obstinately ignore the advice of those of us who understand the dynamics of a modern battlefield because they do not mesh with your own ideas, then I am not going to waste my time. A little grammer and cohesiveness in your posts would go a long way, too. I feel a headache coming on from trying to make sense of what you said.

 

[Maverick223]

Also, as some folks noted above, it's basically a "retronym", in that the term wasn't really needed until a new generation of items came along and a distinction had to be made. Not unlike "acoustic guitar", which only came into existence after "electric guitar" became common and just "guitar" was as likely to refer to the latter as the former.

Exactly...when the .30-06 was the light infantry cartridge (as in WWI)...there was no need to classify it further, this is no longer the case. Which brings about a more relevant analogy: the "Great War", which many (most) refer to as WWI, wasn't called that then, because WWII wasn't yet conceived.

HappyGeek: Had a little time to kill (which is exactly what I did...and I want it back), the VPC really has their head up their chamber when it comes to anything firearm related.

 

[happygeek]

HappyGeek: Had a little time to kill (which is exactly what I did...and I want it back), the VPC really has their head up their chamber when it comes to anything firearm related.

Yeah, I've got a little time on my hands right now.

The Violence Policy Center made headlines on June 19, 2000 when it issued a press release stating that its website was the victim of a hacking attack that wiped out their data.

Maybe that's why their web server doesn't allow directory listing anymore ...

Too bad, I realized that most of the PDFs I downloaded from their site have the path name from where they're stored on the VPC's file server in their meta data. For exampe:
F:\Assault Weapons\Gun Fact Sheets\SKS Fact Sheet Ceres CA Shooting 1-11-05.wpd
shows up in the file properties for their press release titled SKS Assault Rifles: A Menace to Law Enforcement

(And before anyone says it, that's not the filename and path where I downloaded it to on my computer, so it has to be from the VPC's file server. I'm finding similar path names in the properties of other PDFs I've downloaded from them.)

 

[Golden_006]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=460850&highlight=Insurgent+Iraq&page=2

I read about serious moded and no sight guns here. See above link and go to page 1. I guess maybe I can get a Mauser and a mini or maybe if I get lucky at a gun show a garand.

Sorry about spelling and grammar I'm typing this form my phone

 

[Maverick223]

The Violence Policy Center made headlines on June 19, 2000 when it issued a press release stating that its website was the victim of a hacking attack that wiped out their data.

Poor kids, like momma always said need to back-up ever-thing. I think I might have to make a donation to the NRA in their honor.

 

[Shadow Man]

Well son, if you want to equip yourself like an insurgent in the sandbox, go for it. And while you're at it, don't utelize a proper cheek weld, or shoulder weld with your rifle. Just stick your rifle around a corner in the direction of your target, and pop off a few rounds. That's what the untrained (read: soon to be dead) ones do.

So yes, comparatively, a Mini is better than a FAL with no inner components (at least the Mini will fire...) or a G3 without a buttstock or sights. However, it may serve you better if you compared what you can purchase with what a standing, professional army uses. I would have to be in a very bad way to compare my gear to what an insurgent uses and find it only marginally better.

I see a lot of people opine that they don't consider the Mini-14 as durable enough for combat. Why is that?

Candiru, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. There are quite a few threads on THR referring to the Mini-14 not bein suitable for combat use, however I will provide you with a brief rundown: The early versions were reviled for their lack of accuracy, even at close ranges. This problem has been reportadly fixed in the newer models, however the weapon was designed as a light-duty gun, more of a ranch rifle, as I believe one of their models is called. The weapon, even in modern form, is prone to 'stringing' its shots when it heats up, which occurs very rapidly when using high-velocity rounds like the 5.56x45mm. As this occurs within fifteen or so rounds, and the weapon's highest capacity magazine is 20 rounds, you would be hard pressed to make it through one magazine, rapid fire, without seriously degrading your accuracy. Also, from what I have heard, they are tough buggers to mount optics on, and are prone to parts failure. A search of the forums should provide you with extensive facts about the rifle, along with some varying and interesting opinions about it. Hope that helps.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

I certainly agree it's probably a "retronym". Used to be there were submachine guns and there were rifles. Then, someone had the bright idea of taking their 7.92x57mm cartridge and making the 7.92x33mm, aka the 7.92 kurz, and putting it in a lighter weight shorter selective fire magazine fed rifle.

Once most other countries did similar, a term was needed to define the new type of rifle. Of course, a term was also needed for the old type. Hence, battle rifle and assault rifle. Like I said, I've never heard anyone in the military who's not a hobbyist use those terms; I've only heard the terms rifle or long gun used.

Someone said they'd try to check Janes for an authoritative definition of the term battle rifle. Or, we could just use the VPC's "dictionary" and call all automatics a machine gun, all semi-autos an assault weapon, and all bolt actions a purpose built sniping weapon of war.

If Janes actually has it that would say something. Until that point, I'm somewhat skeptical of any official/academic/professional validity of the term. That's one annoyance I have with the Wikipedia article: it's clearly written by hobbyists but makes it sound like it's a very official designation.

Again, with the "retronym" issue, it really seems to be a denigrating term used by hobbyists who don't like modern lightweight 5.56-type rifles. It seems far too commonly used by the guys who insist "those dang M16 poodleshooters and 9mm Euro-guns won't drop a furriner in his tracks, so our boys in the Marines and such are hauling all the old battle rifles and .45s out of storage...rararararar "

(FWIW, I did Iraq '03 and '04, Afghanistan '08, and saw a mere handful of M14s with USMC EOD and some Army folks using them as DMR rifles [Marines just use the heavy M16A4 for DMR]. I've seen one .45 1911 in a combat zone, on a Civil Affairs security officer loaned out from some MEUSOC raiding unit who was allowed to keep his piece while he was OPCON to 3rd Civil Affairs Group. From what I've seen the rumours of M14/1911 rebirth are greatly exaggerated, though not completely unbased.)

 

[Sunray]

"...a(SIC) Assault Rifle..." There have been exactly two ever made. The AK47 and the STG44. An assualt rifle is a mag fed, select fire, rifle, chambered in the same calibre as the PBI rifle, but with a smaller cartridge. The term, when applied to military style commercial rifles, is a media invention.
Every other military issue rifle is a battle rifle. Including the M16 family. Mind you, governments have gone to one rifle for everything. Just like they did when they stopped making a Cavalry and PBI rifle at the end of the 19th Century. Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield had nothing to do with the length of the mag. Had to do with the length of the rifle. One rifle for everybody. Money talked, loudly, then too.
A battle rifle is a rifle designed to be used for battle. Not hunting like either the AR15 or Mini-14. Both are commercial marketing things.
A battle rifle is of simple design so it can be field stripped, for cleaning, with no tools or a minimum of tools by troopies, who were not familiar with firearms, despite the U.S. myth, with a minimum of training. (The M1 Rifle was designed to be field stripped with no other tool than a loaded cartridge.) Made for reliability/robustness, ease of manufacture and low cost, first. Then accuracy with service/NATO spec ammo. Accuracy of the rifle and its ammo has to meet minimum requirements. That'd be 'milspec'. Neither the AR15 or Mini-14 are even close to milspec.

 

[Maverick223]

There have been exactly two ever made. The AK47 and the STG44.

I'd even go so far as to say there has only been one...the Sturmgewehr (due only to the name, not the design).

 

[Cosmoline]

I think we can agree that "battle rifle" is a term invented after-the-fact by collectors and history buffs. It's not a military term, nor is it likely to become one since the species of rifle in question is a rare bird on the battlefield these days and if they want to describe something they will simply use the specific name.

Scanning Google and the Amazon books, there are two definitions that seem to be in use. Either a vague definition of any combat rifle--at least from the 20th century--using a full powered cartridge regardless of action type. The other definition is restricted to semi autos or select fire rifles.

The French Berthier: the world's ugliest battle rifle started life as a 3-shooter. How dumb was that?: An article from: Guns Magazine by John Sheehan (Digital - Jan 2, 2006)

The P-14/M1917 Enfield: our most-issued WWI battle rifle was a British design.

vs.

Fabrique Nationale's FN-49: last of the WWII-era battle rifles.

The SAFN-49 Battle Rifle (A Shooter's and Collector's Guide) by Joe Poyer

Since it's people like us here on this forum who find any use for the term, why not use the term that serves some use? If we go with the broader definition we might as well just say "high powered military rifle." The definition which combines auto or select fire with full powered cartridge describes a historically and technologically distinct group of firearms. It's handy, and useful. We can say "the era of the battle rifle" meaning WWII--esp towards the end--through the early stages of Vietnam.

A battle rifle is a rifle designed to be used for battle.

What's the point of that definition? And who decided that there have only been two "assault rifles"? I've NEVER heard that. An assault rifle is a rifle in an intermediate chambering and with selective fire options. That excludes civilian versions in semi only.

 

[swiftak]

Nighty nite. Jesus.

 

[happygeek]

Quick add on to a week old thread:

If Janes actually has it that would say something. Until that point, I'm somewhat skeptical of any official/academic/professional validity of the term. That's one annoyance I have with the Wikipedia article: it's clearly written by hobbyists but makes it sound like it's a very official designation.

Ok, I checked the library while I was there and they have Janes Infantry Small Arms going back to 1978. I didn't bother checking every edition from the last 30 years, but I did look in the 2003 - 2006 edition and the 1978 one. They just have small arms broken down into pistols, submachine guns, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns in the 2003 - 2006 one. The 1978 one breaks them down into pistols, submachine guns, automatic rifles, shotguns, machine guns, and special purpose weapons (like sniper rifles).

Janes didn't seem to include a definition though. They just label the chapter Automatic Rifles and then show them. I couldn't find Battle Rifle in the index of either edition of Janes.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/indepth/jiw.html

Quick Google search turned up this list of types of infantry small arms listed in Janes.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Sorry for bumping an older thread but I couldn't resist.


The way it was defined for me is a "battle rifle" fires a full power round, and is semi or full auto. But usualy semi since big rifle rounds are hard to control on full auto.

The FN Fal, G3, and M14 would define this group. You could argue the M1 Garand was the first battle rifle, although the Garand lacks a detachable mag.


But the battle rifle is nothing but a subset of the assualt rifle which is a term that was coined by Hitler btw. The Germans built the first assualt rifle which defined all post WW2 small arms thinking. A semi or full auto rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. M16, G36, AK47/74, Sig550, etc, etc.

The assualt rifle was a result of study's done on combat in the second world war and German military theory which was adopted by everyone else post WW2. Having a round that packed more punch than a pistol round such as the MP40, but was usable in a fully automatic weapon, and was light enough for the solider to carry a lot of them was very desirable for German miltary tactics at the time. The Germans concluded that most infantry engagements would occur at less than 300 yards so a full power round was simply wasted at shorter distances. The STG44 was a result of this thinking.

The US military adopted the German militarys view on intermediate rounds hence our adoption of the M16 in the 60's, and retirement of the M14. Since the US military was the major player in NATO most of Europe followed suit as well, although not reluctantly. After WW2 most European country's were reluctant to adopt the 7.62 round as NATO's standard. Most already favored a smaller round. Due to their experiance in WW2 Russia came to this conclusion sooner and adoped the AK47 right after the war.

What is interesting is while NATO uses the 5.56 round and the US sticks to the M16 family of rifles, no other country does. The rest of the world uses AK's, FN Fal's, or G3's. The AK's use is easy to explain since its cheap and the Russians gave them out like gumballs during the cold war to anyone who said they were communist.