Assault rifles vs battle rifles

What's the difference? Other than possibly most battle rifles lack automatic capability and most battle rifles are in 7.62mm calibre.

 

Full auto maybe. Like the Halo 2 one. (urg...)

I think technically the AK-47 is an assault rifle

And the M-16 is one for sure.

Assault rifle: an automatic rifle or at least has a burst mode

A battle rifle is probably more of a carbine.

Of course they could just be two names for the same class of gun (most likely I think)

 

The key differences are that while a Battle Rifle uses full powered rifle ammunition (Such as 7.62mm NATO), to be an Assault Rifle the weapon has to use an intermediate cartridge (Such as 5.56mm, 5.45mm or the Soviet 7.62mm short round used in the AKs), be capable of selective fire (i.e. semi-auto, full auto and/or burst) and be carbine sized (basically, shorter than a Battle Rifle).

So a rifle firing a full power cartridge and capable of selective fire is still a Battle Rifle not an Assault Rifle, and a rifle firing an intermediate cartridge but not capable of full auto or burst is not an Assault Rifle (I think these would be considered Carbines).

As examples:

The FN-FAL (SLR to the Brits), H&K G-3 and M-14, etc are Battle Rifles.

The FAMAS, L85A2 SA-80, M-16, AKM, etc are Assault Rifles.

The M1 Carbine (NOT the Garand) and SKS are Carbines.

 

Simon is right, but I think it should be pointed out that these are unofficial terms - especially "battle rifle", which seems to have been invented fairly recently to distinguish the full-power guns from the assault rifles.

Another problem is that the distinction is becoming blurred. SOCOM's new gun, the selective-fire FN SCAR, will be available in both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 calibres, with hardly any difference between them except for the calibre. The same applies to HK's new 416 and 417.


Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

What about the M4 carbine?

 

Any short-barrelled rifle can be called a "carbine".


Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

It's an Assault Rifle, since it uses an intermediate round, is selective fire and shorter in length than a Battle Rifle.

The "Carbine" bit in the name of the M4 comes from it being basically a shortened version of a standard assault rifle. Carbines originally were shorter barrelled guns for use by mounted troops IIRC.

Any Assault Rifle is a Carbine, but not every Carbine is an Assault Rifle.

 

No, I mean when you said a rifle firing an intermediate cartridge but incapable of selective fire would be considered a carbine. But the M4 is capable of automatic fire, isn't it?

 

As Tony already indicated, all Carbine means is a rifle shorter in length than a standard (Battle) Rifle. All Assault Rifles are Carbines, even if it's not in their name.

Carbine is useful as a separate definition for the likes of the M1 Carbine and SKS for example as these are not selective fire so are not Assault Rifles, but fire intermediate cartridges so are not Battle Rifles, but they are shorter barreled (And usually intended for second line or non-combat troops) than their Battle Rifle counterparts, so are Carbines. Such separate Carbines in military use have been completely superceded AFAIK by Assault Rifles in practically every regular armed force.

The M4 probably uses the word Carbine as part of its designation as it is essentially a shortened M16, already a Carbine itself, but it's useful to emphasise that it is a shortened assault rifle. It's sort of a Carbined-Carbine.

To recap, yes it is a Carbine (as are all Assault Rifles), but as it ticks all the right boxes (Short length, selective fire, intermediate cartridge) it is also an Assault Rifle rather than a dedicated Carbine like the SKS (Short length, intermediate cartridge, not selective fire).

Hope this helps a bit, sorry if it's a bit rambling but I've just got back from work and am a bit tired.

 

That is NATO sellection? In my country AK-47 is "automatska puska" (AP) (automatic rifle) SKS is "poluautomatska puska" (PAP-Semi-automatic rifle),so basicly they select by fire modes.There is one interested selection caled "pusko-mitraljez" (PM-rifle-machinegun) in few models,one is bit owergrown AK-47 in caliber 7.62x55 with same modes of fire as AK,anotther is M-84 (improoved degtarev) who got only full auto rate of fire.

 

No not at all, most NATO countries have an Assault Rifle, Light Support Weapon (Roughly equivilent to the pusko-mitraljez, in the British Army it is just a heavy barrelled SA80), Light Machine Gun (Usually if not always belt fed), Heavy Machine Gun, sniper rifles (Usually bolt action). I only mentioned Battle Rifles and Assault Rifles because those are what Blaster asked about and Carbines since there was a bit of overlap there.

 

Yep,that is pretty much same as here,but snipers r semi automatic (Dragunov,in domestic production) except the 12.7x99 (50 cal) withc is bolt action.

 

I own an FAL which is often called a battle rifle

http://www.blackclawgames.com/bcforum/v ... .php?t=323

There was a time when I could not understand why armies were going to lighter, less powerful assault rifles. But now, having lugged this thing around just short distances, I understand.

A heavier gun with heavier ammo means troops will have less ammo to fight with. Lighter ammo and weapons lets a soldier carry his own ammo plus some ammo for the squad support weapon. The only advantage the older rifles offer is longer range, but the kind of range offered is almost never a range that soldiers engage at without a sniper scope.

 

Not the only one. Barrier penetration is much better, and terminal effectiveness is more reliable (= the bad guys fall over more frequently when shot).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

So, um, why did the armies of the world switch to assault rifles?

 

I'm sure I've explained this to you in principal on at least one occasion before.

Assault rifles have plenty enough range for normal combat conditions, are much more controllable firing bursts at close range (Very useful in CQB and densely wooded areas) and are more compact meaning again they're much more usable in tighter confines or when having to bomb-burst from a vehicle or helicopter.

Assault rifles are basically a compromise between a battle rifle and an SMG, you get better range and accuracy in single shot than you could expect from any SMG, you get controllable automatic fire that you would not realistically get from a battle rifle and you get a compactness (which does make a big difference in close quarters where split second reflexes make the difference between killing or being killed) that you just couldn't practically get with a battle rifle, in the trade off you loose pure "stopping power" and effective range against a battle rifle.

Also the military overall doesn't have to buy and maintain two seperate classes of weapons, doesn't need to supply two different types of ammunition in the field and it makes training easier since there is only one type of weapon rather than two.

 

You are correct. Although I'm not certain how often that greater power comes into play. Either gun is capable of killing someone. The bigger rounds make a more lethal impact but the lighter rounds give you more ammo to shoot them with. Since most combat fire is suppression fire, more rounds are usually the preference. And when its time to fire a nasty heavy round that will penetrate a steel plate someone's hiding behind, there's always the 50 cal.

 

True, but the greater barrier penetration is apparently valued for shooting through walls in Iraq; 7.62mm will demolish cinder-block walls which 5.56mm just splat against.

While the 5.56mm is perfectly capable of inflicting lethal injuries, when you're in close-quarter combat you want your enemy to go down now when shot, not in 15 seconds or so - that gives them too much time to kill you before they die. I know that no cartridge is a guaranteed instant stopper - not even the .50 - but the 7.62mm is more reliable in this repect than the 5.56mm.

It's interesting to note that many of the old 7.62mm M14s have been taken out of store, refurbished and reissued in Iraq, and the new special forces rifle - the FN SCAR - has been ordered in 7.62x51 as well as 5.56mm versions.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

The M-14 and the sniper version , the M-21, are being used as designated marksmen rifles.

 

Take any gun you like. As long as the user knows the limit of his weapon and his own limits, one has a very dangerous adversary.

Personally, if I had one weapon, and one weapon only to choose and to possess, it would be a .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle with a 3X9 or 4X12 scope.

You can drop any animal that walks with a .22 (although there are some I would not enjoy taking with a .22).

The 5.56 is an excellent cartridge, but I do prefer the 7.62 NATO over it. As Tony points out, it has much better penetrating capability over the 5.56, or the 7.62 X 39. I have used 7.62X39 'steel core' against 1/4" plate and bounced, while a 'standard' FMJ 150 grain 7.62 NATO round from the M1A went through it like a hot knife through butter.

Of course, I prefer the 30.06 over both. I just cannot carry as much ammo with a 30.06 as I can with a .22 long rifle.

- Greg

:smok: