ForgottenWeapons
patreon
What is a "Battle Rifle"?
🕑 Added 2024-04-10 12:00:05 +0000 UTC"Battle rifle" is not a formally recognized term like "assault rifle", but it is widely used, and I think it has a lot of utility. It is intended to differentiate between intermediate-caliber and full-power military rifles, and to that end I propose these four criteria to define a "battle rifle":
1 - A military style or pattern rifle
2 - Intended primarily to be fired from the shoulder
3 - Self-loading (either semi- or fully automatic)
4 - Chambered for a full power rifle cartridge
Comments
Forgotten Weapons
In my opinion, the WW1 BAR, Chauchat, and Fedorov make up their own special little type; "Automatic Rifles". That's how they were referred to at the time, and it was basically before people realized that walking-fire hip shooting was not a viable tactic, and focus shifted to true light machine guns.
DaveJD
Would you include the original (sans bipod) WWI-era BAR and Fedorov in with battle rifles, LMGs or their own niche category? I usually hear or read about them referred to as autorifles or squad automatics.
Tobias Prinz
I think it is a fun exercise to contemplate how we ended up with the two clusters around 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 (I mostly blame the NATO, but the WP had similar ideas with 5.45x39 and 7.62x54R, only the 7.62x39 messes that pattern up). Knowing only too well how committees work, I instantly became a fan of 6.5 Grendel and later 6.8 SPC when they came out... now look how well that went. When it comes to drawing a line, I should point out that the German hunting laws know two levels: 1000J muzzle energy allow you to hunt small game, including roe deer (C. capreolus). 2000J at 100m allow you to hunt bigger game like boars and red deer (C. elaphus). It is a really annoying distinction if you have to work with it when using heavy-for-caliber bullets (45-70 is awesome for boars but, depending on loads, has less than 2000J at 100m), but it seems an acceptable threshold for military rounds designed to hurt humans (where no one does "heavy-for-caliber" unless suppressors become standard).
Tobias Prinz
I think the Fedorov Avtomat and the Cei-Rigotti fit all four criteria and are older. It think they are the reason Ian mentioned the both the 6.5 Arisaka and 6.5 Carcano.
Rick Notkin
Just saw a F$&%book post that noted that a Ma Deuce would not be classified as an "assault weapon". 8>)
Jeff Price
So Garand is first Battle Rifle?
Glenn Miller
Great video. Appreciate your clear descriptions and examples.
Martin Morehouse
The difference in the individual soldier's basic load is a good distinction between battle rifle and assault rifle.
Dan Rosenthal
And yet there's a reason that dozens of nations still use the G3 in some capacity today, and almost none use the M1 Garand.
Guido Schriewer
and 5: a thing of beauty and joy. -- in between would be something like a psl... svd... a safn in another direction as the garand. just the part in the vid as I type it. kel tec rfb. or galil 762 would be a real good one. I would absolutely put sks vz52 in battle rifles. intermediate caliber or not. the intended way to use them... battle rifle. and where's a ag-42 in that... 6,5mm intermediate... full power caliber...
z c
I heard they were releasing a lower pressure round for training so they dont burn the barrels out in a year
Forgotten Weapons
Yes.
Cleo45
So would I be correct in thinking the new US military rifle XM7 would be considered a battle rifle but not an assault rifle because of the full power loading?
Forgotten Weapons
There's really no solid line where you could make the differentiation for any objective reason. Lots of cartridges exist in the spectrum between 5.56x45 and .30-06, and it's really just a subjective decision where to put the boundary line. I'll probably do a video on this as well, because it's worth talking about even if there isn't a good answer.
Dana Arbeit
One could say that "battle rifle" and "Infantry Rifle" define the same firearm, at least in mid-20th Century and later applications. I still think a bayonet mount should be included in the definition.
Forgotten Weapons
The .277 Fury is close in physical size to the British rounds, but way higher pressure.
Forgotten Weapons
I disagree, because I think those WW2 rifles do belong there. The M1 Garand with a skilled operator can maintain a rate of aimed fire equal to a G3, for instance - and with better sights and trigger.
Dan Rosenthal
If the criteria doesn't include "select-fire capability", then it's a meaningless definition because you'll be lumping in a lot of WWII era service rifles into a category where they don't belong.
Bestrone
Hello Ian. I know this might be an interesting question, with a lot of answers, but why is there no "hard cutoff" with the nomenclature of battle rifle vs Assault Rifle. What is a "Full powered" Rifle cartridge? I know there's plenty of examples, but having a hard definition would be nice.
z c
Id be very interested to get a FAL in .277 fury since its close to .280 British which the gun was intended for
ppeeks
The nice thing about the term "battle rifle" is exactly that it has no generally accepted definition. Thus, one can define it in a way that sets the boundaries for one's collecting interest. Here is how I define it, and what thus defines my collecting interest. Criteria for inclusion in my “battle rifle” category: semiautomatic operation only (i.e., not selective fire, but single-shot mode is allowable; magazine (fixed or detachable) fed; primarily intended to be used with iron sights, even if a telescopic sight could be affixed; actually issued to troops and used in combat, even if only in very small numbers (i.e., not experimental only). My unconventional definition allows for inclusion of rifles firing “intermediate” power ammunition such as the .351 Win SL and .30 Carbine cartridges.
Terry
Are you ever going to go back to the monthly Q&A’s, or have they become too time intensive now that you have become an international jet-setter and publishing magnate?
