What "Battle" Rifle

[dfaugh]

As mentioned, many on the list aren't truly considered "battle rifles". But, i also think people are splitting hairs here, too. If the intent (as I read it) is a reliable, reasonably powerful rifle, you gotta go SKS...Cheap. reliable and durable. How can you beat a $150, that shoots (relatively) cheap ammo, to minute-of-bad-guy out to 300-400 yards?

The only one I wouldn't have would be an AR-15, based on cost/benefit.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

There is but one "Battle rifle," that is the M1
The rest are fun plinkers.
For a budget, Mosin or SKS

 

[Father Knows Best]

If the intent (as I read it) is a reliable, reasonably powerful rifle, you gotta go SKS...Cheap. reliable and durable. How can you beat a $150, that shoots (relatively) cheap ammo, to minute-of-bad-guy out to 300-400 yards?

I agree 100%, and I don't even own an SKS. The poster said he wanted the best value for someone on a budget. The SKS wins, hands down, because it is cheap and reliable.

 

[Ian Sean]

Hmmm...Battle rifle...detatchable mag, full power cartridge type military rifle is what I always thought the accepted definition was.

The U.S. M-14, the German G-3, and the FN-FAL come to mind.

 

[MJ]

And the answer is!

 

[Hoppy590]

see, i draw a line at "battle Rifle" and "assault rifle". there is no overlap. and the intended and actual employment is just as important as its physical charecteristics. unfortunatly the M14 just didnt make it in my mind.

the FAL is an assault rifle. its designed for volume fire and to be used as an assault rifle.

the M14's in service in iraq are differant animals all together.

Hmmm...Battle rifle...detatchable mag, full power cartridge type military rifle is what I always thought the accepted definition was.

so whats a 1903? Garand?

 

[RockRifle]

M14 not meeting aimed fire requirement???

the last TRUE " battle rifle" as far as i know is really the M1 garand. i WOULD say the M14, but that doesnt fufill the "aimed fire" requirement

It has only been recently that AR's have edged out M1A's and M14's at Camp Perry in the Service Rifle catagory, and I believe that is because paper doesn't care about stopping power. The less recoil of the 223 lends itself to rapid fire. That said, I don't understand how a rifle that can compete at 1000yds with full power ammo doesn't meet the aimed fire requirement.

Under 100 yds, in an urban door to door environment, an M4 has the handling advantage and still has stopping power. Add a 6.8 SPC upper to increase range and stopping power.
At Range and in harsh environments the M-1 and the M-14 would better suit the needs of a mid-range rifleman. The higher ammo capacity of the M-14 would give it an edge on the M-1, but the 30cal ammo of both would give precision volume fire at range. (600-800m without a problem)
The SKS and AK provide volume fire in a harsh environment to the untrained masses, but the AR, FAL, G-3, M-1 and M-14 are capable of better accuracy. The Ak and SKS will function reliably with little maintainance in the worst conditions. (the AR will need to be cleaned more!-full of sand it don't work well at all!)

I have an M-1A, a AR-15, and a 1911. As the threat gets closer, I grab the next tool in line.

 

[Ian Sean]

the FAL is an assault rifle. its designed for volume fire and to be used as an assault rifle.

The FAL is a battle rifle, it fires a full size cartridge.

An Assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge (AK-AR etc...).

so whats a 1903? Garand?

Oh darn. I forgot Mauser, Enfield, MAS, Tokarev, etc....I was just naming a couple of the biggies....

 

[Hoppy590]

alright, what ever, not worth argueing.

 

[sacp81170a]

the M14 just didnt make it in my mind

Hoppy590, not trying to stir the pot, but what about an M-14 makes it "not a battle rifle"? If it's the select fire capability, then I agree, automatic fire out of an M-14 is notoriously inaccurate. Otherwise, the major difference is that the M-14 accepts a detachable mag rather than an en bloc clip and it's chambered in 7.62 NATO rather than .30-06. Ballistically, the two rounds are almost identical. Used in semiauto mode, the M-14 is as accurate and powerful as the Garand and both are based on the same design.

Am I missing something?

(BTW, I own a Garand and an M1A and I'd be hard pressed to say which one I like better, but for a battle rifle, the M-14 wins hands down due to the 20 round magazine.)

 

[Braith-Wafer]

You forgot to add the CETME/HK's and Sturmgewehr 57 to the poll

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've used both the M1 and M14 (the latter in pre-M21 sniper configuration) in combat, and seen the FAL in action when operating with Australians. The M14 would be my choice, and if I couldn't have an M14, then my M1 would do just fine.

 

[DMK]

Semantics aside, the SKS is the best value, as a fairly powerful and reliable semi-automatic, for a person on a budget. A CMP Garand would be a good choice too.

You could also build an AR15 over time. That would be more expensive in the long run, but it's fairly simple to do and you'd end up with a more accurate and versatile weapon IMO.

 

[Man-O-War]

Since you asked what is the best value for the money, I voted for the SKS. It's hard to beat them for reliability and the prices are usually very reasonable. I agree that the AR-15 is definitely more versatile but way more expensive. I agree with DMK about the CMP Garand though. I would have voted for it if it had been on the list.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

I'll agree that the SKS is the best weapon dollar for dollar.

 

[Molon Labe]

Note that the list contains Main Battle Rifles and Battle Carbines:

AR 15 - Battle Carbine
AR 10 - Main Battle Rifle
AK - Battle Carbine
SKS - Battle Carbine
FAL - Main Battle Rifle

 

[Molon Labe]

BTW: the SKS is my pick.

 

[mustanger98]

I voted "Other" with M1 Garand in mind. I see I'm not the first Garand guy to hit this thread.

 

[M110]

Other = M1 Garand!!

 

[MJ]

Listen to what Vern said.

The M-14 has all the respect I can muster and then some.



MJ
67/68
The Highlands.

 

[rbernie]

The least expensive yet still functional choices would be a Saiga in 223 for an intermediate chambering rifle and a CETME for a 308/full power rifle.

 

[Manedwolf]

If you want a .308 battle rifle, why not get one of the Saigas in .308? Kalashnikov action, and you can get 20rounders from one of the mods here.

Not surprised that a lot of people here don't even know they exist, since they don't take out glossy two-page spreads in BUY EXPENSIVE GUN magazines...

 

[fugi]

Not surprised that a lot of people here don't even know they exist, since they don't take out glossy two-page spreads in BUY EXPENSIVE GUN magazines...

actually it was mentioned halfway through page one.

 

[Manedwolf]

Mentioned, yes, but I still see an awful lot of people that seem to think that the FAL is the only .308 semiauto rifle you can currently buy off the shelf for an affordeable price.

 

[Groundhog]

Battle Rifle

IMHO the Garand would be my choice. Ammo available everywhere in this country at least. And I sure would not be going anywhere else. Sited to hit a man, sorry ladies, between the crotch and throat at 600 yds. The other weapons are all fine weapons, but where would one obtain the amount of ammo required for some kind of battle in quantity???? 30-06 available in any hardware store in the country......Just my opinion.....