Talk:Battle rifle

AK-47?

The AK-47 is not among the list of battle rifles, yet it uses the 7.62 by 39 mm cartridge, as do the G3, M14, FN SCAR H and several others. If the caliber is the main difference between an assault and a battle rifle, why is the AK-47 considered an assault rifle and not a battle rifle in this article?

What a battle rifle is

In my experience, battle rifle nearly always refers to a full-caliber military rifle, and it would seem to be the primary definition if someone came up with a classification scheme for "battle rifles" that consists only of full-caliber rifles. I really think this revision is the most accurate. Are there any authoritative texts that indicate "battle rifle" can/should be used to mean something else? Ergbert 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) edited Ergbert 03:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two uses of the term in the lexicon for battle rifle, somewhat less so for 'main battle rifle'. Its POV for the article to take a position on it. There is nothing really authorative either way, because use of the term not standarized, just various sources using it one way or another. Personally, I like 'main battle rifle' for the general use, and 'battle rifle' as a non-technical reference to the higher powered rifles. Trying to be too specific cause problems at the border line of what constitutes a full-power vs intermediate rounds. The BR issue aside, I cannot find a reference for the 'phases' mentioned. Ve3 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, sry for not seeing your messsage sooner.

It nearly always refers to full-power rifles (AFAIK), though, and thus that's what the article should be primarily about. I don't understand your POV comment, as my edit did not state that either use of the phrase is correct, while yours does. Also, IMO that link was irrelevant -- we don't need a list of random web pages that use "battle rifle" a certain way. Ergbert 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pfft... AKs are not battle rifles. The term battle rifle usually applies to long range standard issue infantry rifles that use full power rounds. AKs use higher calibre rounds than M-16s, but the powder content inside each cartridge is lower than a full power rifle round, throwing it into the Assault Rifle Category because of that and the fact that it can be fired fully automatic. AllStarZ 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition the M43 round produces far lower energies at the muzzle and from the AK it only has an effective range of around 300m. Veritas Panther 23:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term?

Where exactly has this term originated from? Some are saying its from Halo...I don't think so. In Halo 1 at least, it was more like an SMG. Leedeth 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This term has been used for many decades adn isnt some fanboy halo thing. whoever told you that obviously has no prior experince with firearms or has done any research. (Esskater11 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Any References?

Can anyone give a reference (e.g. from a FM) for the definition given for a "battle rifle"? Also, the second link at the end of the article is about a 5.56 rifle which is described as a "battle rifle" - which contradicts the definition given in the article.

I don't have any english-speaking military experience, but it strikes me as strange to group together fully-automatic personal rifles together with bolt-action ones, and to group other automatic rifles in another category just because of caliber (or even just muzzle velocity in the case of the AK-47).Causantin 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Morever, over half the hits on google for "battle rifle" (146.000) also contain the word "halo" (76.600). Whereas a search for assault rifle returns over a million hits with most of them referring to actual assault rifles. Causantin 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not an FM, but I do have a rather popular firearms magazine that defines battle rifle. From what it says though, there is a lot of confusion over the term.--LWF 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want, I'm sure I can find some references in e.g. the writings of Jeff Cooper. But look at it this way: there was a very specific WWII development of a new type weapon, the most distinctive feature of which was its reduced power cartridge.

All weapons that retained a late 1880's style smokeless "high power" cartridge (ignoring the important move from large round nose to medium weight spitzer bullets) have more in common with each other than they have with this newfangled strumgewehre AKA "assault rifle", even as battle rifles adopted the large box magazines, straight line recoil layout, and even full auto features of assault rifles (the Garand is the classic example of a semi-auto battle rifle designed before these became popular).

They are still fundamentally different in how you can employ them simply due to the power, e.g. the higher recoil has strong implications for rapid and full auto fire, the greater power for how far you can "reach out and touch someone", shoot through barriers, etc. Hga 11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like some sources too. A google search for battle rifle either shows up the halo weapon, a mirror of wikipedia or use the term to refer to a service rifle. I can't help but think of "battle rifle" as a neologism, specifically when referring to guns like the G3, FAL etc. because they use 7.62 NATO rounds that are considered "full power". Should we now consider weapons like the M249 SAW a new class of weapon because it uses an assault rifle cartridge? --Philip Laurence 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Though not a relible source i have seen the use of the word "battle rifle" in documnetrys that were made in 92. ForeverDEAD 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well laurence that doesnt make sense as it already is a SAW ForeverDEAD 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just that since we don't have any governments or firearm companies sources using the term "battle rifle" it meets the guidelines of a neologism. --Philip Laurence 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that might help. Heckler and Koch doesn't use the acknowledge the term battle rifle because as per their nomenclature, the G3, is named the Gewehr 3 because the 3 denotes a selective-fire assault rifle. Their naming scheme can be viewed here. --Philip Laurence 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Google Books; there are a number of books on law, history, and ethics that mention the term "battle rifle", such as Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Chadwick, Massacre, Murder, Mayhem, McGregor, and one tentatively military refernce, War on Film: Military History Education, Videotapes, Motion Pictures, and Related Audiovisual Aids by Maj. F. A. Eiserman, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. The oldest mention I see is also a military reference, in Hatcher's Notebook , from 1962, who said "the Garand was unquestionably a better battle rifle than the Johnson". The problem is, since this is a relatively recent term, all the works are copyrighted and it's hard to get a good feel for the use in the limited views you get out of Google Books. However, someone with access to a good library could then go check the complete reference. scot 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And wait, there's more! Here's a government solicitation: " Notice of Intent to Conduct a Sole Item/Sole Source Procurement for22 ea Knights PN 23241 SR-25 battle rifle with 16” barrel and 5 ea Knights PN 21035-1 MK-11 MOD-0 20” barrel", from here. scot 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Procurement information for the Navy, showing the United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle used by the SEALs and Marines: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/08pres/proc/WPN_Book.pdf scot 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"the Garand was unquestionably a better battle rifle than the Johnson" - yes, but what we have been discussing is using the term battle rifle to refer to "assault rifles" using "full-powered" ammo. As i've said, dictionaries even use the term battle rifle to describe service rifles. --Philip Laurence 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it's me again. I have stumbled on another source, Encyclopedia Brittanica. Their entry on assault rifles contradicts Wikipedia's assault rifle/battle rifle divide (highlighted in bold).

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

I am only aware of 4 "battle rifles"; the G3, FAL, CETME and Sig 510 - all of which are considered not to be assault rifles because they happen to use 7.62 NATO. Perhaps 7.62 NATO is considered a "reduced power" cartridge? --Philip Laurence 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

7.62x51mm is NOT a "reduced power" cartridge by any definition. While the 7.62x51mm is shorter than the .30-06, it is no less powerful in the standard military loading. The .30-06 started out as the .30-03, firing a long, round nosed bullet, much like the .30-40 Krag. This was obsolete already, as most countries had already switched to lightweight spitzer bullets, so the .30-06 was slightly modified (shorter neck for the shorter bullet) and loaded with faster powder to push the light bullet at a higher velocity. The case capacity was left the same--as a matter of fact it was slightly increased, since there was less bullet taking up space--which left the .30-06 over-capacity for the standard military round. This makes the .30-06 such a great sporting cartridge, as it can handle a huge range of bullet weights, but it's not terribly efficient. Early attempts to adapt the .30-06 to light automatic rifles resulted in reliability problems, so the cartridge was shortened. The shorter case had identical ballistics to the spitzer .30-06 loads, and was more reliable in modified Garand actions, and the combination became the 7.62x51mm and the M-14. The 7.62x51mm is more powerful than the .303 British, and equal to the 7.62x54R and the 7.92x57mm, so it is by no means an "intermediate cartridge". The definitive intermediate cartridge was the 7.92x33mm, made by shortening the 7.92x57mm, so that clearly puts the 7.62x51mm into the "full power service cartridge" category. There ARE some "intermediate cartridges" based on the .30-06/7.62x51mml; they're found chambered in metallic silhouette handguns (limited to 14" barrel length) and benchrest shooting rifles (who are very concerned with maximizing volumetric efficiency, which helps consistency). They are the .308 x 1.5 (38mm case length), the nearly identical .30 BR (39mm case length), and a few other very similar wildcats, either based directly on the 7.62x51mm or the shorter .308 x 1.5. scot 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)