Battle Rifle vs. Assault Rifle

Is a battle rifle needed or even good enough for the type of combat most soldiers see in todays warfare? The assault rifle has the range for most situation, better hit probability, more controlable up close and personnal ( which is likely encountered in modern warfare), especially when dealing with multible targets, more ammo can be carried. The battle rifle only benefits are range, which as stated previously is the exception not the rule, and penetration, and if you need penetration from a rifle you are likely shooting at someone you can't see and using up your small but heavy supply of ammo in hopes that you are hitting them. So far I am not convinced that the battle rifle is better than the assault rifle in todays combat. I see alot of "if they are in this terrain or that terrain the battle rifle is better". But a soldier is issued only one rifle to do it all. And I still believe that in MODERN WARFARE the assault is the best choice.
 
How about jungle/obstacle penetration? 7.62 NATO has it in spades, but the 5.56 NATO doesn't.

If I was in strictly urban terrain or needed to move really fast over long ranges, the assault weapon would be my choice.

Otherwise, I'd probably want to go with a M14, FAL, or G3 style rifle, in no particular order. .308's grown on me.
 
maybe a different perspective...........I recently acquired a old beat up rem 1100 with a non-rifled 20" barrel and rifle sights.....took it to the range to see if it would work and with rifled slugs at 50yds, I used three rounds to test the functioning with slugs and I had two overlapping holes and one hole an inch away all on a horizontal line 3" inches above point of aim------when Ive the time Im going to take it see exactly what distance it becomes useless for aimed fire,,,,,,I figure maybe 25 more yds if im lucky......I suppose if your looking for a defensive urban type of arm it might work in most scenarios........just a thought.........about six or so weeks ago I participated in a "action rifle" event, with scenarios built around house clearing and plates at max range of 200yds, several of the rooms had multiple plates to be engaged in the room clearing and one stage was set around shooting around windows door etc., left hand and magazine changes etc., this brought some weaknesses in some shooting gear and weapons and displayed lack of skill and talent or training in others......the fn, garands, m1a's and other long heavy rifles were a problem in most of that type of scenario and didnt appear to have any advantage not even at the 200 yd line plates....although outside of the "gamesmen" ship aspect, I dont doubt the big calibers would enter one end and go out the other of a house in a good number of situations........just another thought....fubsy.
 
12 ga slugs should be good to at least 100yds. If you're shooting 3" high at 50, the 1100 is probably zeroed at 100.
 
riverdog,
Im hoping for that distance.....but I would like to see a 6" group at that distance..........fubsy.....
 
Re "keeping their heads down"

I've heard the argument about using the AR-type 5.56 assault rifles as a way of keeping the enemy's head down. I've been reading a bunch of books about WWI lately, and I can tell you that one of the main reasons they spent four years cowering in trenches 100-400 yards apart was because of the power of the Mauser '98's, SMLE No.1 Mk.3 and, later on, the Springfield 1903. These rifles, which are supposedly so ineffective compared with assault rifles, helped to pin down (and destroy) some of the largest armies in the history of the world.
 
So far I am not convinced that the battle rifle is better than the assault rifle in todays combat. I see alot of "if they are in this terrain or that terrain the battle rifle is better". But a soldier is issued only one rifle to do it all. And I still believe that in MODERN WARFARE the assault is the best choice.
Click to expand...

Ah, but now you're changing the question. You opened with some vague comment about choosing a rifle for "protection," not what to issue to "modern" soldiers.

Bigger bullets wreck things better than smaller bullets, and something like a 30-06 will do more damage (and at greater range) than something like a .223. Believe it or not, there are a number of things that a rifle cartridge can do that the smaller bullet can not.

Whether this matters to you is another question entirely. Hell -- whether this matters to the US Government at all is in question. I was at the range yesterday and saw most of a squad's worth of rangers from the 1st Rgr Btn out there goofing off with their privately owned weapons. I borrowed one guy's (piece of crap) Century Sporter wanna-be HK91 (and let him shoot my M1A), and watched them shoot damn near everything -- lots of pistols, a .308 bolt-action rifle, a couple of SKS's, an AK or 2, lots of very "tactical" looking shotguns (including pistol grips and all the goodies), etc. I wasn't impressed.

Not only were there a ton of safety violations, these guys simply couldn't shoot. Blasting away at a metal folding chair from 15 yards with 2 shotguns and only about 1 shell out of 3 hit the chair! Lots of fast shooting at 50m and 100m targets, but no precision fire. Hell, I'm way out of practice but I could keep a coke can jumping with every shot at 50m with my (new to me) M1A and iron sights until the thing blew apart -- much better than I saw from these guys in an elite unit. (Note that I was once judged not-good-enough to go to Ranger bat and had my orders to 2nd Btn yanked -- I've got shoulders that dislocate slightly when you tug on them -- but this isn't jealousy. These guys truly sucked.)

You may be right -- marksmanship and powerful rifles may be "obsolete" in a "modern" context. But I'm worried about what might happen to these guys against Afgan sharpshooters with their "obsolete" Enfields. :eek: :( Those "useless in a MODERN sense" .303's can probably wreck a Hummvee's engine block at a few hundred meters for starters. But then, I'm sure massed mostly-unaimed .223 fire will get their heads down while we use arty to blast the hell out of any-and-every outcropping of rock. Those Afganis don't stand a chance. :rolleyes:

As always, in my (not so humble tonight) opinion.
 
What made the "no-man's land" during WWI so dangerous was the incredible concentration of manpower (each carrying a rifle, any rifle) in a constricted area magnified by presence of pre-planned artillery and pre-sited machinegun kill zones on top of trenches, bunkers and barbed wire. It was basically the fact that men/weapons were concentrated in a Napoleonic fashion, yet the lethality of weapons (particularly machineguns and artillery) shot up to "modern" levels.

There is a oft-told story that when the Germans first ran into the British (with their 10-round magazine-fed rifles), the former thought that the latter possessed huge quantities of machineguns! Now imagine what the Germans would've thought if the Brits actually HAD automatic weapons with 30-round mags!

In actual fighting during WWII, grenades, pistols (including a 32-round variant of the Luger!), shotguns and, later on, submachine guns were prized.

Seen conversely, the "superior" riflemanship did not allow attackers to sufficiently suppress the defender for a successful attack - hence the stalemate of the trench. While the Allies came up with a technological solution (the tank) to make the breach, the Germans came up with a doctrinal (and much more successful) solution - the Stosstrupen - who were taught to bypass strongpoints, infiltrate and dislocate the rear areas while leaving the isolated pockets for the mop-up units. The Stosstrupen carried more "automatic" weapons than the "normal," hitherto obsolete infantry unit.

Skorzeny
 
I think something like 75% of the world population now lives in urban areas, no?
Click to expand...

In a modern war that'll be where 90% of the bombs, artillery, missiles, and terrorist attacks will happen. Urban situations are a death trap in a SHTF situation.
 
Hmmmm, my AR vs my FAL. I'll chooooosssssse......... SHOVEL & KNIFE!!!

While y'allr' grabbin yer AR's and Springfield 1903's, I'll be diggin a hole under a boulder I have picked out a couple miles away. You ever seen one of those documentary's on Turd Beetles? That's me - I'll be diggin and fillin the hole in behind me. I need the knife to cut the throats of those icky earthworms that may choose to get in my way.

Otherwise, I'm grabbin my AR. Stand and shoot is for the birds. I'll shoot long enough to get my 'run' on - and I need a light gun and light ammo for that.

You know the saying "cover me - I'm goin in!"? Mine is "cover me! I'm gettin the hell outa here!!"

:D
 
WilderBill; Shush now feller, don't you know that the Pole's have a long history of fighting all kinds of people. As a decendent of Pole's who left Poland one step ahead of a Prussian firing squad I have always been somewhat proud of that heritage, particurarly since it goes with the other side which left the English Isles one step ahead of the King's Hangman. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top