Battle Rifles

[JB19Kilo]

Are outdated on the battlefield for most uses, but I still find them charming/awesome. Discuss.

[mrnyman]

Are outdated on the battlefield for most uses, but I still find them charming/awesome. Discuss.

Says who? We'd like to know

[JB19Kilo]

During my time in the Army (03-05) we switched from M16A2s to M4 Carbines. Neither are battle rifles but the trend in my opinion has been smaller calibers and weapons with the exception of speialized support roles, such as a medium machine gunner with M240B or a designated markman with M21. I do like how the M14/M21 is the comeback kid, hitting the battlefield again after many years out of service. Due to the NATO Standardized Agreement (origin of the term STANAG magazines..) all of our allies now use 5.56, thus my statement about how no one really uses battle rifles anymore. Except Pakistan, I think they have G3s.

EDIT: Yes other countries still use them other than Pakistan, but I mean most 1st world militaries and US allies

[beefcakeb0]

The Mosin Nagant is still in use in Afghanistan.

[thunderw0lf]

My opinion is that the military needs to dump the hi tech stuff and go back to swords and shields and fight wars hand to hand. Wonder how long people would be willing to fight then, having to be in direct contact with the enemy instead of launching a missile from miles away.

[tonyfac]

Are outdated on the battlefield for most uses, but I still find them charming/awesome. Discuss.

it all depends which rifles you are talking about. if this is general "all rifles used in war", most are ugly, but functional. i also fine cute, honest women charming, i really don't think i ever found a firearm charming, sexy maybe, but not charming.

[Rundownfid]

I doubt we will see the return of true battle rifles for general issue. First of all they are really unusable in full auto, and even a three shot burst, as used on most ARs, is not viable with a .308 level of recoil. Of course there coud be a major reduction in recoil, one thinks of the 12 Ga shotgun that fires full auto without intolerable recoil (the name eludes me). Also, with our better understanding of aerodynamics, slightly better propellants, etc. the advantage at long range of a battle rifle over an assault rifle is pretty slim. Were we to go to something like a 6.5 Grendel we could get most of the advantages of a battle rifle at extended distance and still have the advantages of an assault rifle at closer ranges.

Most good decisions involve making wise compromises. In battle the best compromise for the foreseeable future seems to be an assault rifle, perhaps configurable for different theaters of conflict. Specialized weapons can be added to the mix to deal with the extremes of range and spaces. One could see a Brigade that has been used to clear Bagdad being resupplied and retrained with extra long range punch added in the form of a designated marksman or two per squad, (and the guy that used the shotgun to blow of hinges will need rearmed).

[electronics]

My opinion is that the military needs to dump the hi tech stuff and go back to swords and shields and fight wars hand to hand. Wonder how long people would be willing to fight then, having to be in direct contact with the enemy instead of launching a missile from miles away.

Might be difficult to convince them terr'ists to do it...

[IronButt]

Might be difficult to convince them terr'ists to do it...

Damn sneaky terrorists never play by the rules.

[Ecclectic Collector]

I think others have summerized many of the reasons why the battle rifle isn't used any more in front line service.

Add to the excessive recoil (compared to a .223), the sheer weight of a combat load of ammo, and the fact that the small caliber guns are really designed to wound, not necessarily kill a foe. Add to that the historical reluctance of the military to reinvest in a complete overhaul of their logistical inventory of small arms ammo.

Recently I saw a documentary on some of the new generation of CQB weapons, and some of those are in mighty specialized calibers.

If (and I mean a BIG if) the armed forces decided tomorrow to standardize on one of these specialized combat rounds (5.7mm, 6x33mm, etc...), maybe we'd see a mix of calibers being fielded again such as was done in the old days (think WW2 era 30-06, 30 carbine, .45 acp). I don't think its really so much an issue to field multiple front line calibers, but it would take a sea change in attitudes with our military. Many in the military hiarchy fought the .223 introduction way back in the early 1960s, but those folks are long gone, and the current 40+ years of small caliber weapons systems has built a lot of sheer inertia (not even counting NATO compliance issues).

Me, I think the 7.62 NATO is an outstanding round, but so are the 8mm Mauser, 6.5x55mm Swede, etc...and a lot of other old full caliber rounds. Not a damn thing wrong with any of them, but they are all almost extinct as military cartridges.