What is the definition of a battle rifle?

[Zack]

A Battle Rifle is a rifle that you cannot afford to practice with.

Yup.

To the anti's any rifle that is "black" is a "evil black rifle" which is define to them as a "battle rifle" But a true one is full auto

 

[Jefferson Herb]

Battle Rifle - A Rifle that you have,and can shoot well,causes soiled clothing to those on the recieving end. Not everyone can shoot a larger cal rifle well,and if they can not for long. I was a snipe in USN [engine room]and our battle rifle was a 5in 54.
That being said,our forfathers used what they brung,or picked up from someone who had no use for it anymore.If you use it well,I don't want it pointed at me.

 

[C-grunt]

Moving into Afghanistan...the insurgents have moved from house to house fights out into the fields and mountains. They learned against the Russians, in another 10 year war (the Russians gave up and quit) to hide in the hills and snipe. A recent video showed a platoon tied down and hiding from a single sniper that was shooting from beyond the maximum capability of the M4's. In a situation like that, all the troops can do is call in for back up! Which resulted in a missile strike that killed helpless civilians. Would a few 7.62's have helped in that situation..in my opinion - yes! Oh, well.

In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and ou dont know where he is.

 

[dougw47]

Maveric .223

^ Overall that was a pretty decent speech...I even read part of it.

Thanks! I was on a spell last night...and I love you too! Seriously, I read your posts and agree with/accept 80% of them. I am not perfect and neither is anyone else in this world. I have an opinion on most subjects, but that does not mean I am always right! I was concerned that the Mod's would delete my long-winded post.

I like this board very much, and hope we can all get along.

 

[dougw47]

C-grunt

"In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and (y)ou dont know where he is."

That was the point I was trying to make. Counter-sniper work is very specialized and requires a bit more than pray and spray until you are out of ammo.

 

[Cosmoline]

Didn't we have a huge thread on this topic last year?

Yes, yes we did

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=489988

It seems the term was not used until fairly recently, as a way of distinguishing between auto feeders in full powered cartridges such as 7.62 NATO and those "assault rifles" in 5.56 and similar intermediate rounds. Prior to that, there was really no need for the term. The term also appears to have its roots in civilian gun sales, not in the military.

It was then retroactively applied to Mosins, Mausers, Enfields, and so on. But if the term is going to be applied that broadly we may as well not use it at all. Bolt action surplus covers that ground well enough.

 

[Maverick223]

I am not perfect and neither is anyone else in this world...I like this board very much, and hope we can all get along.

Doug, I was just giving you a hard time. I actually read the post in its entirety, and it really was a good speech (though it really did seem that you were trying to sell something/running for office). I believe the mods pay more attention to content rather than length, so I don't believe your post is going anywhere.

 

[C-grunt]

"In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and (y)ou dont know where he is."

That was the point I was trying to make. Counter-sniper work is very specialized and requires a bit more than pray and spray until you are out of ammo.

My point is that a 7.62 gun wouldnt have made a difference there either since they didnt know where the sniper was.

The M16/M4 is effective out to at least 500 meters. It might not hit like the hammer of Thor at that range, but it still will put a bullet through you. Even the standard 147grn 7.62 at that range is nothing to write home about.

Both rounds are traveling well under 2k FPS at that range and therefor outside of the velocity threshold to cause significant trauma outside the bullet track. The 7.62 does have the advantage of size and weight so it will do more damage.

But if you watch that video where the Marine gets shot by the sniper through the shoulder. After the initial shock of getting hit, he really isnt that bad and probably could still fight if really needed. He was shot by what was probably a full sized battle rifle round. He even kinda jokes and asks someone to take a picture.

Just shows that at these extended ranges, shot placement is even more crucial as much of the devestating wounding effects of a rifle are no longer there.

 

[ol' scratch]

What about an AR-10?

So given the fact that a battle rifle shoots a full power cartridge, wouldn't an AR-10 be a 'battle' rifle?

It seems that weight is the only thing that distinguishes a battle rifle, from an assault rifle.

The terms 'assault' rifle and 'battle' rifle have always troubled me. Battle rifle seems more socially acceptable. I even read where someone wrote the M1 Garand WAS an assault rifle becase their was an experimental version-The T20 that took a detachable BAR magazine and had a select fire switch.

I'm with a few other posts. A rifle, is a rifle, is a rifle....

 

[SSN Vet]

my personal definition (which I just made up )

a battle rifle is one that can...

1. can drop a bull at 500 yds.

&

2. if turned upside down and used as a club, can drop the same bull at 5 ft.

 

[docsleepy]

I went to an Appleseed saturday instruction recently, after a year of learning something about benchrest shooting with a bolt action (.223 and then 6PPC).

Wow. what a different mindset. AFter struggling all day long with a balky bolt action .22LR (scope even fell off once!) I had a completely new understanding of what rifle you wanted to carry into a BATTLE.

Sure, the usual definition of BATTLE rifle was the .30 cal rifle of WWII, but for my money, what I wanted was a:

semiautomatic!!!!!!!!
magazine fed (>10 rounds, please!!!)
centerfire!!!!
that would hold a scope for my tired old eyes,
and with the RIGHT STOCK LENGTH so I could SEE something through that scope

so I went and put in an order for what YOU already own -- an AR15 style rifle. Congrats to you! It should arrive within a week. Got a great deal as the prices seem to be tumbling, and I already have all the reloading equipt for .223 from my benchrest exploits.

Have fun with your AR15!

(Oh, and that was a GREAT soapbox about Afghanistan. I hate to see our boy's blood go for little, but you may be completely correct in the long run. )

 

[Ignition Override]

Tirod:

Your comment at the bottom (page 1) was "...threw down his jammomatic M4 and grabbed an AK...".

Had a chat with an unfamiliar coworker (based up north). He was in Army Special forces during Desert Storm.
I am still a bit of a novice with guns, by the way: nothing that can begin to compare with you guys/gals.

Anyway, Rick ***** told me that their issued rifles were not reliable and they had to pick up AKs in Iraq. The shuttle ride to the hotel at Newark Airport was very short and just after learning about his earlier background, had no time to let him elaborate on the scenarios.
Can try to get his cell phone # in a few days (from another coworker) if somebody wants to reach him for clarification of his operations in Desert Storm and reasons for his selections of rifles.

 

[dougw47]

Maverick .223

"Doug, I was just giving you a hard time. I actually read the post in its entirety, and it really was a good speech (though it really did seem that you were trying to sell something/running for office). I believe the mods pay more attention to content rather than length, so I don't believe your post is going anywhere."

I have been stewing over the situation since a couple of young men I taught in 6th grade Sunday School graduated school and have now set foot in the Sand Box. Seems people that don't know anyone in the war, tend not to get personally involved or interested. Oh, well.

On the battle rifle issue, I started out with the M1 Garand, played with the 14 for a brief time and saw the 16 come in while I was in ROTC. They were guns, I liked each for different reasons. I might have charged my mind as The ARMY and I were going to win the war in Viet Nam...til a car wreck and three broken vertebrae sent me back to the silly-villian world. Probably a good thing since 2/3rds of my graduating ROTC class in 1965...did not make it back.

Always on the outside (wannabe) I read and thought a lot.

I don't know what the answer is for the M16/M4 rifle is...is it a bigger cartridge? Possibly, looks good on paper...Lord! What an expense to change over! It just does not seem to me that the army will trash all those 5.56's.

Is a bigger rifle (7.62) the magic answer? How many missions do the troops go on where they never need an 800 yd rifle? Probably a lot!

In WWII, they had the 03a3, the Garand, the M1 Carbine, and the BAR in some groups. We seemed to fall into the mind-set that one rifle is all we need...but that is changing! We need to diversify in my opinion.

Hitler waited too late to bring in the semi-auto assault rifle...depending on the Mausers far too long, when we had them out-gunned with the Garand.

We know the military brass are slow to change, that is a fact. They changed to the Stoner rifle in the middle of the war...will they do it again?

How long, with today's reduced factory production, would it take to produce 100,000 new rifles of some as-of-yet unknown design...with 10,000,000 new cartridges? And get them in the hands of the troops, and familiarized?

I have lots of questions and I am looking for reasonable answers. What next?

Another long post...apologies, I am just so darned passionate about this!

 

[stinger 327]

For a battle rifle what is the preferred sight? an open or peep sight for very fast target acquisition or a scope where you can reach out further and touch someone but takes longer to site in target?

 

[Maverick223]

How long, with today's reduced factory production, would it take to produce 100,000 new rifles of some as-of-yet unknown design...with 10,000,000 new cartridges?

Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each?

For a battle rifle what is the preferred sight? an open or peep sight for very fast target acquisition or a scope where you can reach out further and touch someone but takes longer to site in target

They all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.

 

[stinger 327]

Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each?

They all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.

Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.
Probably scopes are alot more prone and sensitive to damage.

 

[Maverick223]

Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.

Playing devils advocate here, but is it really any worse than an Aimpoint, or [gasp] a ACOG (which is technically a scope, and a darn good one)?

Probably scopes are alot more prone and sensitive to damage.

Not nearly as bad as they were in the not-too-distant past. Case in point: ACOG, or NF, or S&B. In fact any scope with a robust tube design, solid internals, and etched reticle will hold up pretty darn good, some better than the rifles they are placed on IMO.

 

[Tirod]

Pinning down a casual acquaintance's report on the unreliability of the M16 is like nailing jelly to the wall. The perpetrators of this lie continue to pop up and spread their misinformation secure in the knowledge they can't be tracked down and called on the details - which should have been in the unit's afteraction report, documented. Unit, date, time, details, etc are generally the last things you can get from these "spec ops experts" because they weren't there and they are talking out their wazoo.

The NY Times has another article on it from an reporter traveling with Marines in the poppy fields of Afghanistan, he and most of the 100 soldiers he's interviewed say it's BS the gun doesn't work. Check the Firearms blog for today and read it, along with the link to the military.com Fit up comments.

22 years in the Reserves and a veteran, many soldiers bitch about stuff, their weapon being just one of dozens of subjects they actually have little expertise with. They qualify once a year, and carry it in the field, but they aren't combat arms 10 to 1. It's not their primary tool, it's another encumbrance like the M17 protective mask. They bitch about subjects to those they know can't question their knowledge.

I don't put any credence in "I met a friend of a friend" reports. Name, unit, date, commanding officer, and guess what, document number on the afteraction report typed for the unit history that was forwarded up the chain. OR it's BS, just like a lot of the other "reports" by "ex Vietnam LRRP/SEALS/Special Forces/Rangers" who have got caught lying, weren't even there, and were found to be posers.

It's been going on for 30 years, now it's "Desert Storm" vets. They don't care who they dishonor.

PS this has nothing to do with the 1968 time frame and the bungled issue of M16's to our troops. That's an unfortunate fact.

 

[stinger 327]

Is a Mini-14 considered a battle rifle? Same caliber as AR.

 

[Art Eatman]

stinger, go back to Page 1, when the thread was still on-topic.