Musings on how we define "battle rifle"...

[ny32182]

This post isn't going to make me very popular.

Nitpicking over the use of the term "battle rifle" in some other threads got me thinking... this term means about as much as the term "assault weapon". What is an "assault weapon"? In some states, it is whatever their local laws arbitrarily name it. In others, it no longer has any legal definition. In my mind, a weapon is a weapon, until it is used to assault someone. Only then could it *maybe* be called an "assault weapon", and have that term really mean anything.

The term "battle rifle", afaik, doesn't even have that much. Before WWII, that rifle was a bolt gun, but we would hardly think of a bolt gun as a battle rifle today. Some people like to look at the size of the cartridge to determine "battle rifle" status. But where is the line drawn? What is a "full power" cartridge? In the 20th century, the trend all over the world was toward smaller cartridges. The US went from '06 to the weaker 7.62x51, and from there to the weaker yet 5.56. Who decided that x51 was a full power cartridge, and 5.56 wasn't?

Now it appears that if a new cartridge is adopted, it will be back toward the larger end, but between x51 and 5.56. So will the 6.8mm "special purpose cartridge" be a "full power" cartridge or not? Will the gun that fires it be a "battle rifle"? (Another ironic thing is that the proponents of the "special purpose cartridge" want it to be anything *but* special purpose... it seems they want it to be standard issue in rifles, carbines, machine guns, and designated marksman rifles... sounds pretty general to me).

IMO, a battle rifle is a rifle with which battle is done... nothing more, nothing less. Flame suit on.

 

[444]

This has been covered many times before, but the term battle rifle and the term assult rifle had a perfectly logical and well thought out meaning long before the news media got hold of the term and started using it for something else.

 

[Burt Blade]

battle rifle: rifle you have in your hand during a battle, that does not fail.

assault rifle: select-fire rifle you have in your hand during a battle. Often used to describe flintlocks and water pistols by some members of the media.

 

[AZ Jeff]

As others have already pointed out, the term "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" are already well defined by those in the know (NOT the mainstream media.)

That said, you made a major error in your statements. I would NOT agree with your assessment that the "US went from '06 to the weaker 7.62x51".

For all practical purposes, the 7.62 NATO M80 ball ammo is equal in power, penetration, trajectory, to it's .30/06 M2 predecessor.

 

[P95Carry]

For my purposes .... ''battle rifle'' is probably any rifle that has been issued to military (at some time) and/or seen military service.

I reckon my FAL is an eminent example.

Go back further in history tho and an Enfield, M1, Mauser - all could qualify.

If designated MBR - ''Main'' battle rifle then certainly I reckon it has to cover a rifle that has seen, or is seeing service actively.

The SA80 - tho - hmmmm - I'd rather leave that out of this ! I can hardly label an inefficient bullpup as a rifle! LOL.

 

[Gewehr98]

They were defined and established well before ttbadboy was a look in his dad's eyes.

And my dear friend 444 gave a good accounting of it in a similar thread some time ago:

This whole thing about defining the term "battle rifle" and "assult rifle" seem to come up in each and every one of these threads.

In one of these threads I posted that I first heard these terms defined in the early 1980s in a book written by Chuck Taylor. In this book, the term battle rifle is used to define a military rifle that fires a full sized rifle cartridge. The 7.62 Nato, or .30-06 or 8mm Mauser or 7.62x54R are examples of battle rifle cartridges.

The term assault rifle defined a military weapon that fires an intermediate powered round (not a battlerifle cartridge, not a submachine gun cartridge). This goes along with the thinking of the Germans and Russians toward the end of WWII in which they decided that the perfect military rifle should be effective out to about 300 meters and be capable of select fire. The 7.62x39 and 5.56 Nato are examples of assault rifle cartridges.

A submachine gun fires a pistol cartridge. 9mm Luger and .45 ACP are examples.

For the last 20 years or so I though these terms were useful and aided in communication. I use them and see no reason not to.

Neither do I, 444. Nor did the late, great Ian Hogg in his books, at least the ones that are on my bookshelf. It's not whether you want to be popular or not, ttbadboy, it's what's written and accepted as the common definition. We could still be using the term "hand gonne" as far as that goes, but some historians know there's a considerable difference between "hand gonne" and "handgun". It's simply a matter of how much education you're willing to handle...

 

[Tony Williams]

I basically agree with 444's definitions quoted above. However, there are some areas of dispute, which are actually growing larger, as I realised when Max Popenker and I set out to write 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition'.

One is the retrospective argument, specifically concerning the Russian Federov Avtomat of 1916, the first selective-fire rifle to see service, which was chambered in 6.5x50SR Arisaka. Some argue that it cannot be called an assault rifle, either because the term hadn't been invented then, or because the 6.5mm Arisaka was the main rifle/MG cartridge of the Japanese army at the time, so can't be called an 'intermediate' round. I do regard it as an assault rifle, because the ammo was considerably less powerful than the 7.62-7.92mm rounds used by most armies at the time, so the recoil was light enough for auto fire to be controllable (the key distinction from a battle rifle).

The next problem came with the British EM-2 and its 7.43 ammo. This round actually had a very good long-range performance and was intended to replace the .303 entirely in MGs as well as rifles, so some argue that was not an intermediate cartridge so the EM-2 cannot be described as an assault rifle. This doesn't make sense to me, however, as the round had a reduced recoil over the .303 and the compact bullpup EM-2 was definitely designed to perform the role of an assault rifle. However, neither the EM-2 nor its ammo made it into service (for political rather than practical reasons) so the definitions settled down for a while (with the odd hiccup like some FNs being offered in both intermediate and full power rounds).

Now we are getting into definition problems again. We are not only seeing the development of new cartridges designed to fit into assault rifles which have the long-range performance to replace the 7.62x51 (specifically, the 6.5mm Grendel) but even some 'assault rifles' are being chambered for the 7.62x51 (SCAR-H). Do we change the definition of the same gun is it uses different ammo? That doesn't seem sensible or useful.

So where does that leave us? I'm inclined to think that the 'assault rifle/battle rifle' distinction, while being very useful during the second half of the 20th century, is probably on its way out. Armies will just refer to their standard shoulder arm as 'the rifle', as the British have always done.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[c_yeager]

My understanding is that a battle rifle is a rifle chambered for a typical rifle cartridge (30-06, 308 etc) it can be semi-automatic, bolt action, select fire, doesnt matter. its the cartridge that makes the difference.

An assault rifle is a weapon that fires an "intermediate" cartridge (someone between rifle and pistol) and is always self-fire.

There are some gray areas of course. For example, a 9mm selectfire AR15 should be defined as a submachinegun due to use of a pistol cartride, but what about an semi-automatic AR15 in .223? Its not an assault rifle, but its not a battle rifle either. I have generally reffered to them as 'evil black rifles' or EBRs but sometimes they can be green or even pink. "Sporting Rifle" would be a good term, but its pretty darn nonspecific, and it detracts from a rifle that may be intended for defence.

 

[ny32182]

Now we are getting into definition problems again. We are not only seeing the development of new cartridges designed to fit into assault rifles which have the long-range performance to replace the 7.62x51 (specifically, the 6.5mm Grendel) but even some 'assault rifles' are being chambered for the 7.62x51 (SCAR-H). Do we change the definition of the same gun is it uses different ammo? That doesn't seem sensible or useful.

So where does that leave us? I'm inclined to think that the 'assault rifle/battle rifle' distinction, while being very useful during the second half of the 20th century, is probably on its way out. Armies will just refer to their standard shoulder arm as 'the rifle', as the British have always done.

This goes right along with what I was saying/thinking. "Full power" and "intermediate power" especially, don't seem to have concrete definitions. Of course the difference between x51 and 5.56 is substantial, but the new cartridge entries are bluring the line.

 

[BigG]

Although I haven't read the exact books you mention above, I read here often the term "battle" rifle in posts that sound like they were written by a novice. That may be my bias, but anything rifled and shoulder fired is a "rifle." The assault rifle has a lineage that can be traced thru the German Sturmgewehr back to the Federov Avtomat. Select fire and intermediate cartridge are the major attributes.

These hair splitting definition sessions remind me of the many times a 90 day wonder takes pains to explain that the term "pistol" MUST refer to an automatic* (ha ha) and no revolver is a pistol. I say it's bunk. Anything fired with one hand is a pistol, in my book. - although the big revos (S&W .500) might better be carriage mounted -

* and go further to explain that they are actually SEMIautomatic

 

[1911 guy]

language changes

and sometimes those who are acquainted with the terms are the last to get on board. A prime example of this is the word "gay". Ask your granddad what it means and then ask your kid. Same word, two very different answers. All this is to say that I'm sure our Founders considered an over half inch smooth bore flintlock to be a "battle" arm as well as a "sporting" arm, and the veterans of the battle at New Orleans found something of merit in a "squirrel rifle". It is a shame that we cannot come to a solid meaning of each term and find ourselves at the mercy of everyone who picks up pen or typewriter and fits his or her own definition to a word and sways opinion from one end of the spectrum to the other. The 5.56 is now the round of our "main battle rifle", woefully innadequate to the soldiers of the early 1960's and before. I'd say "go figure", but it will just make ours brains ache.

 

[Tony Williams]

These hair splitting definition sessions remind me of the many times a 90 day wonder takes pains to explain that the term "pistol" MUST refer to an automatic* (ha ha) and no revolver is a pistol. I say it's bunk.

For all practical purposes you're right, but there is no doubt that many authorities in the past have held the opposite view. There is one old book I know of called 'Pistols and Revolvers', which demonstrates the point. Although as I recall it, single-shot handguns were also classified as 'pistols': the technical distinction was that the chamber of a pistol was integral with the barrel.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[BigG]

I find ambiguity in some cases to be alluring. The energy expended in this slavish devotion to finding one and only one name for each of these broad categories of things (guns) would be better used in some profitable pursuit, imho.

We are not dealing with microelectronics or chemistry here. Some stuff does not need to be pinned down so neatly. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns are good enough to classify firearms, in my book.

Some old Colt 45 Autos are marked "COLT AUTOMATIC CALIBRE .45" Do these people actually think the manufacturer does not realize the weapon is semiautomatic? As the kids say, "Get a life."

As an adjunct to this paranoia about nomenclature, how does this square with people calling everything and anything a "1911" or an "AR15?" If they are going to be so danged precise in their definitions it should be consistent that they use only correct names for firearms. This sort of stuff is baffling to me. :banghead:

 

[Bwana John]

I always thought the term was "Main Battle Rifle"

 

[Commissar Gribb]

I'd always considered an SKS to be more like a battle rifle and an AK to be more like an assualt rifle in terms of functional usage.

 

[Tony Williams]

AFAIK, the term 'battle rifle' was only invented after the term 'assault rifle' came into general use, to distinguish the two.

If there's anyone to blame for all this, it seems to have been Adolf Hitler who according to legend ordered that the MP.44 should be renamed Sturmgewehr, thereby creating a new name for a new category of weapon.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[444]

I am just making this up, but it stands to reason that the term assult rifle came into being with the change in military tatics (This goes along with what Tony said about the German MP44 which was a "storm rifle" to be used in "lightning war").
Up until that time, two armies squared off against each other and slugged it out like the trenches of WWI, or typical battles of the American Civil War. Starting with WWII, we began using highly mobile troops. Troops deployed in motorized vehicles, and from aircraft and were supported by armor. The battlefield was no longer a literal field where two armies went toe to toe, it was anywhere. And the rifle slowly evolved to reflect this.

 

[BigG]

Starting with WWII, we began using highly mobile troops. Troops deployed in motorized vehicles, and from aircraft and were supported by armor. The battlefield was no longer a literal field where two armies went toe to toe, it was anywhere. And the rifle slowly evolved to reflect this.

And I would agree with this, but whatever the troops were using, it was still a rifle. I would only add that once we move to energy beam type weapons or the next technology, we can then put the term "rifle" back in the archives alongside "musket."

 

[444]

Who said anything about doing away with the term rifle ?
Assult RIFLE
Battle RIFLE


Although most troops now are using a carbine: short version of the rifle. AKA M4 Carbine

It is kind of interesting also that some countries bought right into the assult rifle concept and others took longer to get there: but they all got there. The Russians and Germans jumped right in. The Americans and British tried to cling to the battle rifle with the FAL and the M14 as long as they could. Many people on this board continue in that vein.

 

[ALASKACAJUN]

While Bear hunting I consider my .300 Wby a "battle rifle"...

While ground squirrel hunting my 22-250 can only be described as an "assult weapon," and if it was up to the squirrels I'm sure this rifle would be banned...

- Clint

 

[Tony Williams]

It is kind of interesting also that some countries bought right into the assult rifle concept and others took longer to get there: but they all got there. The Russians and Germans jumped right in. The Americans and British tried to cling to the battle rifle with the FAL and the M14 as long as they could.

Actually, the British were desperate to adopt the EM-2 with its intermediate 7x43 cartridge, but the US Army vetoed it....

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Cosmoline]

To me it's very simple. A battle rifle is something a reasonable person would choose to carry into battle. An assault rifle is something people are REQUIRED to carry into battle.

Seriously, the cartridge is the key. The intermediate cartridges are just that--halfway between rifle and handgun cartridges in power. At the high end they approach the low end of the rifle spectrum. At the low end they're down near the service pistols.

 

[ny32182]

So if someone choose an M4 but was required to carry an M14, that makes the M4 the battle rifle, and the M14 the assault rifle?...

 

[ALASKACAJUN]

NO, becuase noone would choose an M4 over an M14... LOL

- Clint

 

[Commissar Gribb]

NO, becuase noone would choose an M4 over an M14... LOL

sorry, but- twice the ammunition at half the weight? portable size and select fire capability? battle rifles of yore still have their place with dedicated marksmen but today where mobility of lots of ammo and gear is still very important, a 5.56 rifle Is still a very viable choice.