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.
I call trolling. We should stop feeding them.
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.)
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.
I would think a Ruger Mini...
this term can also include older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant or the M1 Garand.
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.
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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 term can also include older military bolt-action or semi-automatic rifles such as the Mosin Nagant or the M1 Garand.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Then we'd have to agree on how to define "carbine," and you want to talk about a can of worms!