Battle Rifle vs. Assault Rifle

M

MP-44

New member
I have never been in combat and never plan on it ( no Walter Mitty here). But going by what I have read, the type of combat most seen since WWII favors the assault rifle. Isn't that how the sturmgewehr came about? And surly, for most people if you did choose a rifle for protection a battle rifle cartridge's bad points would out weigh its merits. To me it seems other than sniper or machinegun use, the main battle rifle cartride is obsolete. BTW I have owned several AKs, Colt AR-15 (I used this for ground hogs), Nagants & Mausers. Ok battle rifle guys, take your blood pressure medicine and start blasting away at my statement. If you convince me I am wrong I will probably go buy a HK91, FAL or maybe even a M1 Garand.
 
For close in (<500yds) fighting in urban or jungle terrain, I'd prefer an assault rifle with larger magazine capacity, as well as ability to carry more .223 vs. .308, better control on full auto for those realy hairy situations, and lighter weight and (subjective) quicker reaction and pointing.

However, for longer distances like desert or mountains, I'd prefer a good battle rifle and some rugged, low power optics.

If I were going to Afghanistan, logistics, compability, and resupply not withstanding, I'd take a battle rifle. From what I remember during the 80's, the Mujahadeen (sp?) had good success against the Soviet 7.62x39 and 5.45 AKs with .303 bolt action Enfields.

My 2 cents:)
 
The Afghanis had EXCELLENT success over the Soviets with the Enfields. In fact, this caused the Soviets to ship in a WHOLE LOT of SVDs beyond the usual TO&E. The Afghanis simply out-ranged the Soviets.
 
Since the question referred to AR's vs BR's in a "protection" context:

In how many self-defense scenarios (NOT: military, mob of roving werewolves, aliens, etc) is a pistol or a shotgun not enough?

In those other cases, is a semi-auto of value? Also in those cases, what is the tradeoff between weight, accuracy, and volume of fire?

If you plan on using an intermediate cartridge for defense, make sure you understand its terminal ballistic properties and what affects them.

For example, 55gr .223 (M193) is much less likely to fragment if the terminal velocity is less than 2500-2700 fps - now you have an expensive 10/22 (.22LR).

A battle rifle cartridge with the "right" bullets is going to be a more effective "stopper" at any range, but stopping power is moot if you miss. Intermediate cartridges can be effective stoppers, given their range limition: lack of velocity for fragmentation (.223), or rainbow-like trajectory (7.62x39).

-z

PS - I'm not dissin' AR's and BR's.. I have quite a collection myself.
 
In Afghanistan, I thought it was more terrain & the peoples determination than the rifle used that help defeat the Soviets. I remember reading back in the early 80s that the AK was a prized possesion of the Afghani that was fortunate enough to come across one.
 
Remember that the Israelis, who have a considerable amount of experience with desert warfare, chose to discard the FN-FAL and adopted a modified AK design, the Galil.

Even during WWII, Germans discovered that volume of fire was of singular tactical importance in battles. Some may scoff at this as "spray-and-pray," but the reality is that fire & movement is the key to success, not just fire. And a large volume of fire allows that movement through "suppressive" effect.

The 19th Century British notion of parking onself in a line and destroying the enemy long-range with superior marksmanship is really obsolete (though it hung on with the British and us through WWII).

Battle rifles should be reserved for "special" applications.

Skorzeny
 
The 19th Century British notion of parking onself in a line and destroying the enemy long-range with superior marksmanship is really obsolete (though it hung on with the British and us through WWII).

Battle rifles should be reserved for "special" applications.
Click to expand...

Bingo! "Adjust fire, over" will kill a lot more effectively than a bunch of riflemen, and at less risk to the attacking unit.

The problem comes in when you're talking about combat where the troops don't have CAS/ARTY resources to back them up.

And surly, for most people if you did choose a rifle for protection a battle rifle cartridge's bad points would out weigh its merits. To me it seems other than sniper or machinegun use, the main battle rifle cartride is obsolete.
Click to expand...

Here's where the differences in opinion come in: what're you trying to protect against? If it's bear most would argue that the 308/30-30/303 battle rifles are going to drop him more effectively than the 22's that today's armies are fond of.

If it's you against the marauding hordes then you can make the argument that a sporter in 308/30-06/300-Mag/etc would increase your survivability as you can take your shots from outside the effective range of the battle carbines and move on to your next position.

If it's you and your buddies against a better-equipped foe, the argument can be made that the rifle cartridges are more practical. The only damage you're going to deal is going to come from the muzzles of your weapons, and something like a .308 is better at hitting enemies (think disabling vehicles, shooting through cover, etc) than a .223.

If your goal is to shoot a lot to keep the enemies head down, a battle carbine is a better tool than a battle rifle. If it's your goal to hit the enemy and make sure he stays down, IMHO something like a Garand/M14/FAL has it all over the AR-15's of the world.

For home defense, neither is appropriate unless you're expecting armored intruders...

All in my opinion, of course.
 
Personally, I like the idea of battle rifles for self-defense. Defeating cover, such as cars, is lot easier with 308/3006 than with 223/7.62x39. Going prone is also easier with them than with an AK.
 
Firearms are just tools. I want to see a "which is better a hammer or a screwdriver" thread. Glock v. Sig--yes. .45 vs. 9mm--yes. Self-loading vs. slide--yes. .308 vs. .223--yes.

THE TRUTH: More important question is how well you are trained than your tool. (Note this does ruin a lot of gun nut fun).
 
Based on the current laws most people can't take advantage of the main feature of an assault rifle - selectable fire! So, the debate is kind of dumb. It really is a debate of intermediate cartridge vs. full cartridge. I will take the larger round and aim.
 
For group operations (with squad support weapons, and possibly artillery or air support): assault rifle

Individual/two man LRP or scouts, battle rifle

Note that these assume a battle/SHTF type scenario. "Defense" is a different thing in your home from a burglar than it is from a group of roving loons with automatic weapons, such as the Taliban.
 
Giving the reason Israel dumped the FAL has nothing to do with Pakastan and India's use of FAL's. Israel is rocky but its not Mountainous. They have Mounts there not Mountains.

The Russians got there butts kicked because of Stinger Missiles. You can't move ground troops threw terrain like that without getting picked off by snipers in the mountains. You can't fly helicopters and planes threw that area without getting picked off by guys with Stinger Missiles.
 
Also, don't forget that combat is increasingly becoming urban combat, not to mention the fact that with the intermediate cartridge, you can generally carry less weight.

I think something like 75% of the world population now lives in urban areas, no?

While I disagree with COL Cooper's opinion about the effectiveness of the intermediate cartridge, I do agree with the venerable colonel that "combat mindset," fieldcraft and a host of other factors are more important than the gun.

Skorzeny
 
It seems to me that Battle Rifle vs Assault Rifle is like the old Revolver vs Semi-Auto Handgun threads. Many wonder what is best and buy what they decided is. Then they come around and realize that they wanted both after all. I bought a Mini 14 a while back in case of a battle scenerio. I wanted a detatchable magazine and the 223 Rem cartridge. I plan on keeping it forever, but I now want an M1 Garand as well (is that considered a Battle Rifle because of its lower capacity and lack of a detatchable box magazine?). I have seen the M1 Garand as a time proven piece of machinery and I see the usefulness of a .30 cal cartridge. In a modern day scenerio, if one was equally comfortable with the operation of both, I don't think one would be any less practical than the other.
 
I now want an M1 Garand as well (is that considered a Battle Rifle because of its lower capacity and lack of a detatchable box magazine?).

I'd say it qualifies as an ur-Battle Rifle.

ur-
pref.
Original; prototypical: ur-feminist; ur-language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[From German ur-, original. See Ursprache.]

The FAL, M-14, and G-3 are the true battle rifles, and obviously the detachable box magazine is the determining factor vs. the M-1. Others that could be included in the category are the AR-10 and the Dragunov.
 
Based on the current laws most people can't take advantage of the main feature of an assault rifle - selectable fire! So, the debate is kind of dumb. It really is a debate of intermediate cartridge vs. full cartridge. I will take the larger round and aim.
Click to expand...

DING!

I concur, both with the conclusion and the logic used to reach it. Either way you cut it, you're going to be aiming and shooting due to the fact that you're limited to semi-auto...the choice is send a .22 caliber round or a .30 caliber round.

I'll send the .30, thanks.

Mike
 
I would feel good with a .223 at 200 yards or under. The .223 would also be preferential for dealing with riots or scavengers, but a handgun could work nicely too, at least at the closer ranges (50 yards).

Beyond 200 yards, I like the power of a .30 caliber. I also prefer it for penetration. There isn't a lot of available cover that will protect you from a .308.

For a guerilla warfare with limited exchange of fire with an aimed initial attack, I also prefer the .308.
 
I agree with the 200 yard dividing line.
If I was looking at city only even the .223 would have more reach than you could use. Maybe a shotgun or pistol caliber carbine.
If you have wide open spaces then bigger IS better.
As to the M 1 - "The greatest battlefeild implement ever divised."
I wouldn't want to face one up close either!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top