Best Battle Rifle?

fg42!


yeah yeah yeah its one of those guns that people say its a LMG, then its an assualt rifle but we all know its a battle rifle!
 
Zorak said:
Oh...I don't know about that...for a while I worked with these weapons and worked with NATO soldiers from around the world. The common definition we had of a battle rifle had to to with the length, girth and purpose of the weapon.

It seems to me if we go by calibre than the CAR, FN MiniMI machine gun, and M16 could all be classified at the same thing. So I am not misunderstood, rifles are typically classified by length and action, not calibre.

An SLR / Battle rifle is typically longer with less ammo, heavier, and the emphasis is on aimed shots, marksmanship, longer ranges, and pentration. Many, like the early FNs were only select fire after special modification requiring a tool (typically a bayonet).

Assault rifles are shorter, typically select fire, often with more ammo and smaller calibres. The emphasis shifts to bursts, firepower, and rounds down. These weapons are often used to supplement the killing power of MGs in the field.

Carbines are the shortest of all rifles, many of which shoot small rifle or pistol calibre. A CAR would be an example of this. Typically they are best applied to short range, high firepower applications such as con space, fibua, spec apps, or overland foot recce.

There are bolt, lever, slide action, and semi auto rifles that fire pistol calibres. There are machine guns that fire deer hunting (7.62 / .308) calibres and machine guns that fire varminting (5.56 / .223) calibres. There are pistols that fire rifle calibres. There are rifles that fire grenades, and there are shotguns that fire slugs.

These categories are not rigid, there is a lot of blending. For example, a M14 with a barrel chop and sage stock has really become a carbine. As a gas gun, it's more like a SLR in its internals, but externally, it meets all the criteria of a carbine. It calibre of course remains the same. As such, firearms are not defined by calibre, but by structure, function, and purpose.
Click to expand...


Well said and interesting!

Mauser 98 has come up a couple of times, maybe not modern but has definetly set a high level of functioning for weapons to folow. The Mauser 98 is a well built battle rifle.

Nic
 
mercuryv8 said:
Well said and interesting!

Mauser 98 has come up a couple of times, maybe not modern but has definetly set a high level of functioning for weapons to folow. The Mauser 98 is a well built battle rifle.

Nic
Click to expand...

Thanks! Mauser 08 is a great choice, also Lee Enfield .303 is good for a bolt BR too (as a WW1 example of a BR) and it goes without saying the Garand is an excellent representative for WW2. Maybe we should be asking "What is the best battle rifle" for a particular generation or conflict. I can't think of any truly modern ones, but there are some updated FALs and M14s out there. My 2 cents says the G3 is a compromise between a BR and AR as it it comes in various sized and calibres, and the internals are more like and AR than a SLR.
 
Well I am going to side against Zorak..

A CAR is a short AW.

A M16 is a Full size AW.

AWs fire intermediate size cartiridges from detatchable box mags and are FULL AUTO.

If you disagree with this then you need to take it up with the Germans who developed the idea and gave the name.



A G3 is a MBR If fires a FULL power round and is of full length even the collapsing stock ones have longer barrels.



FAL, BM59, G3, .308 Galil, AR10 etc are MBRs.
 
Zorak said:
Oh...I don't know about that...for a while I worked with these weapons and worked with NATO soldiers from around the world. The common definition we had of a battle rifle had to to with the length, girth and purpose of the weapon.


It seems to me if we go by calibre than the CAR, FN MiniMI machine gun, and M16 could all be classified at the same thing. So I am not misunderstood, rifles are typically classified by length and action, not calibre.

An SLR / Battle rifle is typically longer with less ammo, heavier, and the emphasis is on aimed shots, marksmanship, longer ranges, and pentration. Many, like the early FNs were only select fire after special modification requiring a tool (typically a bayonet).

Assault rifles are shorter, typically select fire, often with more ammo and smaller calibres. The emphasis shifts to bursts, firepower, and rounds down. These weapons are often used to supplement the killing power of MGs in the field.

Carbines are the shortest of all rifles, many of which shoot small rifle or pistol calibre. A CAR would be an example of this. Typically they are best applied to short range, high firepower applications such as con space, fibua, spec apps, or overland foot recce.

There are bolt, lever, slide action, and semi auto rifles that fire pistol calibres. There are machine guns that fire deer hunting (7.62 / .308) calibres and machine guns that fire varminting (5.56 / .223) calibres. There are pistols that fire rifle calibres. There are rifles that fire grenades, and there are shotguns that fire slugs.

These categories are not rigid, there is a lot of blending. For example, a M14 with a barrel chop and sage stock has really become a carbine. As a gas gun, it's more like a SLR in its internals, but externally, it meets all the criteria of a carbine. It calibre of course remains the same. As such, firearms are not defined by calibre, but by structure, function, and purpose.
Click to expand...

Is there some overlap? Yes. That being said. Carbine and/or rifle. One is short the other long. End of issue yes? There is no such thing as a long carbine,by definition. Caliber of weapon has nothing to do with the designation, it is the size of weapon.

A battle rifle fires a full power cartridge, and is usually semi auto. There have been select fire items out there, none worked well as controllability is compromised and intelligent users usually removed the option. (you used the FN I assume?, See also the M-14, Some G3 users, and the SVT-40's for examples that where select available, but mostly issued semi only.)

The differentiation between assault and battle rifles has nothing to do with the size of the weapon, it is the power level and intended usage. The M-16 and AK series where both originally intended as 300 m weapons. The M-16 grew up into the rifle we have today, the AK stayed as designed in most cases, but both are assault rifles using intermediate power cartridges designed to enhance controllability in selective fire. In tighter situations such as MOUT, it is an asset, as is the ability for the soldier to carry more ammunition. In longer range open conflicts (perhaps as we are seeing more in the eastern conflicts) the battle rifle has the edge in hitting power at longer ranges. There is room for both. But, the defining characteristic of a assault rifle remains the cartridge power, not the calibre, nor the size or weight.

Your rifle/Carbine comparison is a red herring. That is a comparison of weapon size. Battle/Assault rifle comparison is a usage/power level comparison. You can hold any opinion you feel, but any text on weapon history and design will state that an assault rifle is one using an intermediate power cartridge.
 
Last edited:
Muzzle velocity of Cartridges 5.56 mm Ball C77 (M16 assault rifle) 910 m/s
Accuracy: Mean radius at 550 m is less than 20 cm

Muzzle velocity of Cartridges 7.62 mm Ball C21, Ball M80 (NATO MG or BR round) 838 m/s
Accuracy: 20 cm maximum standard deviation at 550 m

In other words, the 5.56 is faster, with a 20 cm spread across the group at 550 m
The 7.62 is slower, with a 20 cm deviation from the group average of shots

The 5.56 is faster than the 7.62. If you count muzzle energy, yes, 7.62 is a "full power" round, as this measure also accounts for mass movement.

The 5.56 is more accurate at the same range.

It is easier to control a light bullet than a heavy one, but 5.56 was not deployed to control full auto fire. It was deployed because it didn't overstress the lightweight alloys and synthetics to be used in the newly emerging class of assault rifles. There is no way an M16 recieve or internals could handle a 7.62 round. The goal was a lightweight, multi-use all purpose assault rifle with more rounds, meaning more "stored kills". If the army moves to the XM 8, we will only be heading further in the direction of lighter weight at 5.7 lbs with the same ammo and capacity.

Battle rifles typically use larger rounds. But there have been many assault rifles such as the AR 10, Bushmaster, etc. that use a .308. I am not disputing that battle rifles use larger calibres, as the rifle I picked as best was a FAL, which uses 7.62 NATO. I am however positive in my assertion that this is only a part of what makes up the concept of a battle rifle.
 
Last edited:
stormbringer said:
If you disagree with this then you need to take it up with the Germans who developed the idea and gave the name.
Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned with German notions of the last century...only in how these items are classified in the common language of professional soldiers. My point is clear and people can accept it or deny it if they want.
 
Zorak said:
My 2 cents says the G3 is a compromise between a BR and AR as it it comes in various sized and calibres, and the internals are more like and AR than a SLR.
Click to expand...
Really so what calibers do the G3's come in let's see
G3/G3A1 762x51
G33/G33A1 556x45 note these G33 firearms use different recievers and trigger housing .The internals are no where like the AR maybe you have it wrong as the G3 was out before the AR ie CEMTE
 
Savage said:
Really so what calibers do the G3's come in let's see
G3/G3A1 762x51
G33/G33A1 556x45 note these G33 firearms use different recievers and trigger housing .The internals are no where like the AR maybe you have it wrong as the G3 was out before the AR ie CEMTE
Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't clear: The G3 comes in various calibres. It also has internals closer to an assault rifle than a self loading rifle (SLR). I am not talking about the AR 15, just using the abbreviation AR as a generic term for modern assault rifles.

So by whomever's defnition you like to look at here, mine or Cocked & Locked--this weapon straddles the boundary between battle and assault rifle. If you go to HK's web page you'll se it comes in all sorts of lengths, shapes and sizes from something that fires a full power 7.62 and is really big and long to something that is a small carbine that fires 5.56.

If you like C&Ls version of ideas, then 5.56 makes its an assault rifle, while 7.62 version makes it a battle rifle. Of course if you like my take that it is about the structure and function of the rifle, I'd say the long one that fires 7.62 is closer to a battle rifle, while the 5.56 lighter general purpose rifle is more like an assault rifle. This rifle splits it down the middle. It's a category buster.

For me it also busts the notion of calibre as the defining factor of what kind of rifle it is. After all, as you mention, it is the same basic weapon, but in two different calibers. Ultimately there's no textbook on this, and we all have our own notions.
 
Sorry but the G3/HK91 comes in only one Cartridge and it always has and that is 7.62x51
The G33/H94 are different rifles and they are not the same as the G3/HK91 if you had actually handled them you would know the difference, but seeing as you are getting your information second hand .Your interpretation of C&L Version is Flawed because this equally applies to the AR10/M16,FN FAL/FN CAL/FNC. both of these rifles AR10/FN FAL used 762x51 as there only cartridge much like the G3 have brought forward a 5.56 version G33.FN FNC/CAL.M16 it is called evolution
 
ahhh, I love the Mausers. 96 and 98k.... all of them.
Lately I get to love the Mosin 91/31. (I'm not smart enough for the Enfields)

but if we're not talking elegance, no affinity to one's national history...
Here it goes:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4645627337050532926&q=izhmash
Much to my dismay... they still make some of the best rifles in the world.
There is the G11, but AFAIK it has never seen combat.
 
Zorak said:
There is no way an M16 recieve or internals could handle a 7.62 round.

Battle rifles typically use larger rounds. But there have been many assault rifles such as the AR 10, Bushmaster, etc. that use a .308. .
Click to expand...


Hint#1, the AR-10 is a battle rifle. Hint#2 Take an AR-10 apart sometime and tell me what the differences in construction between it and an AR 15/M-16 are other then scale.

If the AR can take the pounding .50 Beowolf dishes out (and they do well enough that the US coast gaurd uses them to smash drug runners engines) then it can deal with anything it will get from .308.
 
Last edited:
Cocked&Locked said:
Hint#1, the AR-10 is a battle rifle. Hint#2 Take an AR-10 apart sometime and tell me what the differences in construction between it and an AR 15/M-16 are other then scale.

If the AR can take the pounding .50 Beowolf dishes out (and they do well enough that the US coast gaurd uses them to smash drug runners engines) then it can deal with anything it will get from .308.
Click to expand...


C&L: Exactly!

Zorak, your opinion is your opinion and everyone can debate what they think is the best and that's what threads like this are for. However your posts are so off base and wrong on so many facts that it is clear that you (and this is not said in a malicious way) but you really don't know what you are talking about. C&L have already countered many of your so-called facts with proper information. Let it go.

LI
 
I really love the FAL rifles, but those G3's are quite awesome too. Why are more new models of "black rifles" not appearing in 7.62x51/.308? The American market must be ripe for them now that the AWB is gone. You see a lot of upgraded FALs, mass promotion of the M1A, and the AR10s, but I find it odd that there isn't more choice in 7.62. What do you think?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom