question about so called "battle rifles"

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

papajack

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
60
1. first of all, is there really such a thing? the weapons labeled battle rifles (G3, FAL, CETME, etc.) were all designed to be assault rifles and are all in 7.62x51 NATO, because of the US's stubbornness to keep the 7.62 caliber rifle round forcing NATO to standardize it
2. at what point would a cartridge go from being "intermediate" to "full-power"
 
The term "battle rifle" has even less official status than "assault rifle" has in most armies. It has been invented by people who write about such things on discussion forums, as a shorthand for "self-loading military rifle chambered for a full-power cartridge which thereby makes automatic fire pretty well uncontrollable".

Service intermediate rounds for assault rifles have been in the range 1,400-2,230 joules ME (1,050-1,650 ft/lbs). The full-power cartridges are in the range 3,000-3,700 J (2,250-2,750 ft/lbs). Experimental assault rifle rounds such as the EM-2's 7x43, the 6.8x43 Rem SPC and the 6.5x38 Grendel have reached around 2,430 J (1,800 ft/lbs) so you could probably take something like 2,500 J as being about the upper limit.
 
that's what i figured. i've never heard the term battle rifle (except when being used as a synonym for service rifle or infantry rifle) outside of the internet.
 
Tony has it right.
It is an internet way of differentiating between medium power and full power individual shoulder fired weapons.
 
I have had the term used to describe some full power bolt actions, such as the descriptor, "The Americans fielded the best target rifle, (Springfield 1903), the Germans the best hunting rifle, (Mauser 98k), and the British the best battle rifle, (Enfield No1 MkIII)."
 
Well, I guess you could get into a Wikipedia sort of thing about a full-power, full-length rifle used in battles, which would include all those old bolt-action rifles of wars gone by.

Then there's Patton's comment about the Garand, for being the best battle rifle of all time. What, 1945? That's a fair amount of time ahead of the Internet. :D

As to "full power", most of us take that to mean something of .308 muzzle velocity/energy or equivalent. "Intermediate" would be the AK round. Danged if I know what to call the .223; I grew up with that sort of critter being a "varmint round". :D Wasn't near what a .22-250 or a .220 Swift would do.

The advent of such as select-fire rifles and such as the M16 complicated things a whole bunch.

The bottom line is to not be real picky about terminology. Try to figure out the point of what somebody is trying to say, or what is the actual question. Don't get hung up on word usage by others, whether right, wrong or indifferent in your opinion.

Art
 
Patton called the Garand the best battle "implement" ever devised, not rifle. And I think he was doing it in the context of an endorsement of the rifle in a letter, not in an analytic context.
 
Yeah, we don't do battles anymore, we do assaults. After that it might be engagements/confrontations(?).......who knows, a rifle is a rifle is a rifle in my opinion. All said and done they all pretty much do the same dang thing in different ways.
I just wish someone would just use one on whomever started this "PC" crud.
 
It is a term used by .308 (7.62) owners to feel superior in the presence of .223 (5.56) owners.
Click to expand...

The owners may not be superior, but the cartridge is! :neener:

Gator. Owner of 14 "Battle Rifles" and one semi-auto "assault rifle" clone. :)
 
papajack 1. first of all, is there really such a thing?
Click to expand...
YES.

at what point would a cartridge go from being "intermediate" to "full-power"
Click to expand...
Any standard military cartridge larger than 7.62x39mm should qualify as "full power".

The battle rifle offers full power range and accuracy that make it well-suited to engaging targets at long distances.

At least that's how I understand it :)
 
You can get real technical, but bottom line is; I have always labeled FAL's, G3's, M14s, CETME, and other 7.62x51 (or other large caliber) semi/full automatic military-style firearms as "Battle Rifles."

Military firearms such as the M16, the M4, the AK 47 and 74 (among others) that utilize intermediate cartridges (5.56x45, 5.45x39, 7.62x39) have in my mind been considered "Assault Rifles."

As far as what differentiates the two is a good question that many ballistic round developments have been trying to cover. Take rounds such as the 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel among some others have been trying to bridge this gap and they take up some solid middle ground that can't be labeled as full size nor intermediate.
 
Writers have a duty to define/characterize their terms to avoid undue confusion in the minds of readers. The debate over what constitutes an intermediate rifle cartridge demonstrates this point. Characterizing a rifle cartridge as intermediate on the basis of joules seems like a simple and inspired way to think about this issue.


Timthinker
 
Way I was taught, back in the day... there was rifles... there was carbines... and later on there was burp guns (aka Tommy and/or grease guns). Of course that was back in the day.

Nowadays, it seems that all three have kinda evolved into one sorta size fits all with the exception of a few bolt action rifles, which I don't think I'd call a "battle rifle" either, even tho they fire a full power cartridge (but I could be wrong about that).
 
The problem with the Battle/Assault Rifle split is that nowadays you can get rifles in either 5.56x45 or 7.62x51: the HK 416 and 417, and the Light and Heavy FN SCAR, for instance. It seems a bit odd to categorise the versions of these guns as different kinds of weapons.
 
Just for the fun of "can o' worms" and word games: What's the difference between an assault and a battle? Heck, throw the word "skirmish" into the mix: Is it a battle? How many men have to be involved before you have a battle? A squad? A company? More?

Some much of this comes from WW II and earlier. You look at Afghanistan and Iraq, and the older uses don't really fit, any more. IMO.
 
Assault you're closing to short range and need full-auto trench-broom firepower, a battle means you and the enemy are in a sufficiently prepared state with sufficient support on both sides it is unlikely that either will be able to engage at short range until one side begins to turn the tide, necessitating the longer-ranged accurate firepower provided by M1/MAS-49/FN-49/FAL/CETME/AR-10/M14 type weapons.
 
I've never heard or used the term "battle rifle" in any connection with caliber or power whatever.
A battle rifle, as in "main battle rifle", is simply a broad term for a rifle that was or is general issue to a particular country's army. That usage includes the AR on up to the Martini-Henry.
If the rifle was issued to use in battle, it's a battle rifle. :)
Main Battle Rifle (or MBR) is a recognised descriptor in that context.
Denis
 
Art - now they'll have another name to throw in the mix.
Battle rifles - 7.62x51
Skirmish Rifles - 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 Spc
Scrimmage Rifles - 7.62x39
Assault Rifles - 5.56, 5.45
 
An old marine I grew up with explained to me in about 1988 that the U.S. Military had shifted policy in Vietnam, from using battle rifles to using assault rifles. When I asked him what that meant, he explained that a battle rifle is implemented to dominate a much larger piece of real estate than an assault rifle. The cartridges being used currently were intended to be short to medium range, meaning that the military no longer intends one soldier with a rifle to be the factor that controls a large piece of real estate. He also reluctantly agreed that if the military was no longer willing to take the time necessary to train soldiers to shoot further than 500 yards, there wasn't much point in using a cartridge that was effective further than that.
 
Just for the fun of "can o' worms" and word games: What's the difference between an assault and a battle? Heck, throw the word "skirmish" into the mix: Is it a battle? How many men have to be involved before you have a battle? A squad? A company? More?
Click to expand...

s/skirmish/scout

i could care less about semantics of the various military rifles, but one that always makes me snicker is when someone labels a gun an "entry gun"
 
the term "battle rifle" came from the 1950's when the US switched from the .30-06 M1 garand (which would be called a full power round) to the 7.62x51mm (instead of a "rifle" we got a "battle rifle" then later on we switched from the 7.62 to the 5.56mm and we got the term "assault rifle"

but then again, whats in a name?

basically the term assault rifle can be traced back the the germans during WWII, ever heard of the Sturmgewehr 44? in german "STURNMGEWEHR" is translated to "storm rifle" in the USA STURNMGEWEHR was translated to "assault rifle" basically the assault rifle is shorter and lighter than a standard rifle, but more accurate, with a longer range and power than a SMG, what you might call an intermeadiate rifle,
it lies somewhere between a full power rifle and a submachinegun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
AK47, Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle?
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
happygeek
H
M
  • Locked
Another CETME question
Replies
12
Views
819
ktd
K
DMK
  • Locked
  • Poll
What kind of accuracy do you expect from a battle rifle
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Beetle Bailey
B
M
  • Locked
FR-8: World's only bolt-action assault rifle
2
Replies
49
Views
11K
deputy tom
deputy tom
N
  • Locked
Musings on how we define "battle rifle"...
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top