Battle Rifle? Too Much?

A

amprecon

New member
I don't just like the .308win, I love it. I also like the reliability of military rifles chambered in that round.

What I have discovered about the .308 is that to get the most out of the cartridge the rifle should be scoped. The .308 is capable of reaching out there and magnification helps identify targets better at those ranges which increases your ability to hit those far away targets.

Regarding semi-automatic military rifles that use that caliber, they are comparatively long and heavy. Begin adding any sort of optic on it, not to mention any kind of quality mount, and the weight starts building up fast. Not only does the weight increase quickly, any added optics tends to disrupt the balance of these rifles as well. Those that must have the military style .308 rifles but don’t want the long size of the standard rifles opt for shorter barreled versions. As most of us know, shorter barrels result in decreased velocity and increase muzzle flash and report.

Sporting semi-auto rifles such as Remington's 750, Browning's BAR and Benelli's R1 boast weights equal to or lighter than many sporting bolt-action rifles. It cannot be argued that some have very reliable systems, but nonetheless are more complex than a bolt-action rifle.

So I have decided that since I must have some sort of scope on a .308 caliber rifle, that the total weight of the rifle cannot exceed 8.5lbs. This is just my personal number, a weight I feel comfortable carrying around all day long up and down mountains and through thick brush. Anything heavier and I begin to feel fatigued more quickly.

I know people will say to work out and build up your endurance and muscle strength so the weight of the rifle won’t matter. That may be true to some extent, but I am not a body-builder, I am a rifle shooting hunter, so I must pick a rifle that I am comfortable carrying all day long in my current physical condition.

I believe I don’t need a “Battle Rifle”, I believe that the .308 is better from a lighter non-military style rifle. For “Battle”, I believe the intermediate caliber rifles are better suited as their effective range does not have to be that of the .308. If I were unfortunate enough to be involved in any sort of battle, I would not grab a military style .308 rifle, or any .308 caliber rifle for that matter. I would grab one of the intermediate caliber rifles as they are smaller, lighter, have less recoil and muzzle flash and usually carry more ammunition.

So I am planning to change up my rifles when I get home, to have a more applicable selection.
 
I suspect that the .308 battle-rifle is largely reflective of the historical trend when all rifles were large-cartridge guns (.303 British, .30-06, 8mm Mauser, etc.) because so many battles were fought in open territory with longer-range fights. Since Vietnam, it seems that more and more are being fought in closer-quarters (i.e. either jungles or urban areas) where visibility and distance between combatants is shorter - therefore, less need for a long-range cartridge.

I imagine parts of Afghanistan are still pretty wide open, but I've never been there.

Also, could any military historians comment on how much tactics have changed since WWI-WWII to today? It seems like things have moved away from using lots single, aimed shots at the enemy to using lots of suppressing fire; therefore, a need for bigger long-range cartridges is reduced in favor of higher volumes. Just curious.....:confused:
 
Marines are still taught to single out targets out to 500meters. Army does 300 meters. But its is really not a matter of volume of fire but more so a matter of how much can you carry. That is the reasoning. Its how long can you stay in the fight without being having to be go back and be resupplied. A larger cartridge takes up more space there for you can carry less of them. The smaller they are the more you carry. Just one of the reasons they went to the smaller cartridges. Bigger shells more recoil, average distance most people can shoot.
Many variable on how and why the change. That is why many times it becomes the age ole argument which caliber is better. 5.56 .308 or 30.06?
 
amprecon said:
Location: NE Afghanistan
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for your service.

So I am planning to change up my rifles when I get home, to have a more applicable selection.
Click to expand...

I would never presume to tell a warrior what weapon he should carry, but I generally agree with your assessment. That said, I have several rifles like you describe, bolt action .30 caliber rifles that weigh right at 8 lbs with scope and sling. Even as an old, retired soldier I find them to be suitable for the application and that weight seems to be a happy marriage between stability and portability. My current favorite is a Remington 700 ADL, built in 1983. Even with it's wooden stock, scope, and sling, it weighs in at 8.0 lbs. That's a good weight for a hunting rifle.

Be safe over there, and don't forget to duck.
 
On my '07-08 tour I carried a 203. When I got back my 12 pound scoped AR-10 felt just right. Amazing what your body gets used to over time.

For light work I greatly prefer a lighter AR in one of the mid range calibers.
 
I work as a contractor over here and do not carry a weapon. If given the choice I would choose the .308 over .223.

However, I have had time to consider the rifles I own and their uses and have come to the conclusion that for a .308, a bolt action would be the way to go.

As far as intermediate rifles, mine are in 7.62x39 and 6.8spc.
 
Regarding the change in tactics over the years...we are now better able to apply what we have always wanted to Full Spectrum Dominance. Where we control all aspects of the battlefield. Now this is in a conventional war. Today we are fighting insurgents/terrorists/guerrillas which operate heavily in the human spectrum meaning you have to collect tons of intelligence to know which house to drop a smart bomb on.

The infantry operates integrated with overhead support. Accurate fires from FOBs. Also the heavy weapons platoon can bring serious pain from their M2/mk19s/rockets and such. Individual infantrymen may have AT4 or better and m203s.

The modern infantryman has more resources at his disposal than just his rifle. Also...the light and medium machine guns help add suppressing and covering fire.

All of that being said...seems that we are always fighting a war with the last wars equipment. Look how long it is taking us to change/uparmor vehicles in responses to IEDs.

For our civilian purposes we need to understand that we are not soldiers integrated into a war fighting system.

I think the 308 is a great round and the M1A seems like a great rifle. A little heavy maybe but hey that helps w recoil. AR15 is impressive too...its just a different weapon system for a different task.
 
Full Spectrum Dominance
Click to expand...

Now that is a term too many people fail to grasp. Thank You.

I get discussed with the ideal "it can hit Min of Man at x distance". Problem is X distance isn't a constant.

Todays battle field is a good example. From urban door to door in Iraq to Afghan where the average fire fight exceeds 500 yards.

Too many people fail to understand the concept of Full Spectrum Dominance.

If a rifle can engage targets at 500 yards or more, I'm pretty sure that same rifle will engage targets at 50 yards.

It seems the army understands this whether we do or not, so we have shorter barrels (M4) but add heavy bullets to extend the range.

As to "back home" guns, the ones we actually use in hunting and such, I'm a real wimp when it comes to packing rifles while hunting. I choose the Winchester feather weights, weighing less then 8 pounds.

Full Spectrum Dominance..................thank you for that.
 
I did many a dozen-mile walking hunt in seriously rugged desert mountain country. 9.5-lb Weatherby '06 which I'd set up for long shots. 3x9 scope, Canjar trigger, 26" barrel. Sparse population of desert mule deer means maybe only one shot all season, and maybe out at 400 to 500 yards.

End of day? Sagging shoulder. :D

So, sorta pulling in my horns a bit for range, I went for a 700 Ti 7mm08; sub-MOA and a decent trigger. Good balance. I figure it's a .308 with ten grains less bullet. 6.5 pounds, ready to hunt. My shoulder and legs appreciate that. :)
 
If you want a battle rifle gun with a lightweight there are really only 2 candidates. The SCAR 17s or the KelTec RFB. Both are light around 7.5 pounds with a good scope add a pound or so. Though the RFB is pretty hard to find and not to cheap, the SCAR is much more expensive and also hard to find though
 
I have seen some enfields chambered in 308.

I have a 303 no4 mk2 and it is fairly light, seems lighter than a mini 14 but I haven't weighed though.
 
viciouskitty
If you want a battle rifle gun with a lightweight there are really only 2 candidates.
The SCAR 17s or the KelTec RFB.
Click to expand...

Of the two, I think the 17s is the better choice.


From FN's web site:

- Twist Rate: 1 in 12"

- Barrel Length: 16.25"

- Overall Length: 28.5” folded to 38.5”

- Weight: 8.0 lbs. empty



By comparison, the 17s is 2.5 lbs lighter than my non-folding CQB-16 EBR

- Twist Rate: 1 in 10"

- Barrel Length: 16.25"

- Overall Length: 37.0” to 40.25”

- Weight: 10.5 lbs. empty


.
 
One thing not mentioned is that in former wars (up through Korea) there was a lot of hand to hand combat. And most of that, at night.

The kind of combat common today seldom involves enemy soldiers infiltrating your foxholes. Along with all the nice things about small calibers and being able to carry lots of ammo, today the combat rifle is not meant to be a hand to hand weapon the way it was during WWII and earlier.

Since the 1970s (from my personal experience) we don't train soldiers to use the bayonet (or the rifle its on) as a weapon. My DI was asked about this in basic, and explained it this way..."the ARMY, in its infinite wisdom has determined that if you are in hand to hand distance of the enemy, the odds are extrememly high that at least one of you will have ammuntion,...therefore we are not going to waste time and resources teaching your sorry asses how to use the bayonet!"

.308 "battle" rifles are big and heavy, compared to the carbines in general use today. They are all from the era of rifles as both shooting and hand to hand arms (even if the design comes from the end of that era), and some things are slow to change.

There's a reason that sporterizing a Mauser or Springfield shaved the weight by a couple of pounds, the military version was built to fight with, not just shoot.
 
We really should merge The Art of the Rifle with THR/Rifle Country. It would save us all some time and wouldn't have to recycle as many electrons. ;)
 
I carried a M4 with 203 in 07-08 and after, your body is accustomed to the weight but even before I left I had my Garand and I loved that thing heavy yes but very efficient. So the like it was said before about the weight. when you get back amprecon you will find the right combination that you are comfortable with. So many choices to choose from, so be safe, keep your head down. And thank you for your times and service. Its what you feel comfortable with
 
I would focus on the ammo first to see what fits in the envelope you want to use it in. The .30-06 should have been dropped for the .276 Pederson in 1936 and the .308 never adopted. If the 6.8 SPC were common that might be ideal now. In the meantime, a hot 62 grain .223 (perhaps especially a power/hollowpoint in some circumstances) might be the best thing going. Now find a nice, reliable, semi-auto arm to wrap around it (like an AR)...
 
Last edited:
Since the 1970s (from my personal experience) we don't train soldiers to use the bayonet (or the rifle its on) as a weapon. My DI was asked about this in basic, and explained it this way..."the ARMY, in its infinite wisdom has determined that if you are in hand to hand distance of the enemy, the odds are extrememly high that at least one of you will have ammuntion,...therefore we are not going to waste time and resources teaching your sorry asses how to use the bayonet!"
Click to expand...

With that I agree with whole heartedly. However, I think the bayonet is an indispensable tool. When I was a company commander or other wise had a say, I issued the bayonet with the rifle.

I used the heck out of my M-7 (M16a1) bayonet in Vietnam, not for poking people. I found I could dig a hole pretty dern fast. Used it for probing for booby traps (they call them IEDs now days), cooking little slices of c-rat white bread over a homemade stove. I could go on forever.

The M9 for the 'A2 is better yet. You have a pretty dern good wire cutter, again quite the little whole digger. Sad to say we don't have C-rats and white bread any more but you can still use it if you want to cook something over a little fire. The M9 could be a little lighter though. Thats one of the main reasons I like the bayonet over the entrenching tool, WEIGHT.

Regardless of what rifle, I would want to keep the bayonet even if you don't poke anyone. But its still there is you find someone who needs poked.
 
Could not agree with you more on the bayonet,,,and I think the military is wrong in eliminating bayonet training,,,while I never fixed bayonets in Viet Nam and would probably not do so as long as I had a round left,,,knowing how to use a bayonet on or off the rifle and the vertical butt stroke and horizontal butt stroke are skills every combat soldier should know.

We carried full sized shovels and picks and axes,,,and every night as we moved almost every day we dug bunkers with the shovels and picks filled sandbags and cut down trees with the axes for overhead cover with the sandbags in case of a mortar attack, this was done just before the ambushes and LP's went out at dusk. We were out two to three weeks the longest over one month before we were rotated in behind the wire of a firebase to rest up and pull perimeter duty.

Those of you who have carried and lived out of a heavy rucksack carried on your back know the value of losing weight whether from a lighter rifle or a lighter round or anywhere you can lose it,,,but the battle rifles have their place especially in long range engagements and/or penetrating heavy cover and are light compared to humping the M60 machine gun.

God Bless the P38,,, lightweight and did a great job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top