Talk:Battle rifle


 * I noticed this too. If you read it again you'll notice it does say "the term may also describe older..." which makes the image not necessarily a contradiction of the paragraph, but I agree it's unclear. I think this really just has to do with the origins of the term, not really having a particular purpose and used at will in American gun magazines and internet forums. Its lack of any official definition or usage outside of American gun culture makes it hard to be completely clear, so I'm not really sure how to improve this article. Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What a battle rifle is
In my experience, battle rifle nearly always refers to a full-caliber military rifle, and it would seem to be the primary definition if someone came up with a classification scheme for "battle rifles" that consists only of full-caliber rifles. I really think this revision is the most accurate. Are there any authoritative texts that indicate "battle rifle" can/should be used to mean something else? Ergbert 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC) edited Ergbert 03:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are two uses of the term in the lexicon for battle rifle, somewhat less so for 'main battle rifle'. Its POV for the article to take a position on it. There is nothing really authorative either way, because use of the term not standarized, just various sources using it one way or another. Personally, I like 'main battle rifle' for the general use, and 'battle rifle' as a non-technical reference to the higher powered rifles. Trying to be too specific cause problems at the border line of what constitutes a full-power vs intermediate rounds. The BR issue aside, I cannot find a reference for the 'phases' mentioned. Ve3 22:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, sry for not seeing your messsage sooner.
 * It nearly always refers to full-power rifles (AFAIK), though, and thus that's what the article should be primarily about. I don't understand your POV comment, as my edit did not state that either use of the phrase is correct, while yours does. Also, IMO that link was irrelevant -- we don't need a list of random web pages that use "battle rifle" a certain way. Ergbert 05:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Pfft... AKs are not battle rifles. The term battle rifle usually applies to long range standard issue infantry rifles that use full power rounds. AKs use higher calibre rounds than M-16s, but the powder content inside each cartridge is lower than a full power rifle round, throwing it into the Assault Rifle Category because of that and the fact that it can be fired fully automatic. AllStarZ 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition the M43 round produces far lower energies at the muzzle and from the AK it only has an effective range of around 300m. Veritas Panther 23:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term?
Where exactly has this term originated from? Some are saying its from Halo...I don't think so. In Halo 1 at least, it was more like an SMG. Leedeth 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This term has been used for many decades adn isnt some fanboy halo thing. whoever told you that obviously has no prior experince with firearms or has done any research. (Esskater11 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Still, what is the origin of the term? This article is entirely unsourced. The construction seems recent as it simply two nouns joined slapped one after another; such sloppy usage points to perhaps the '90's and the popularization of the internet. I do not recall having seen the term at any time earlier than around 1999 despite more than passing familiarity with both military theory and military history. It seems to have something to do with the reaction against the relatively new 5.56 and 5.45 mm calibers foisted upon us by McNamara. In any event the article should have some sources cited as to the origin of the term. Zhivago533 (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about the origin of the term. Could it be that the term 'battle rifle' was retroactively coined to contrast 'assault rifle' and that prior to the invention of the assault rifle, the standard issue rifles were just called a rifles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.201.107 (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the unsigned comment above. The term 'battle rifle' is not an official term or military designation. I have seen it used only in American firearms circles, and in US magazines and publications (i.e. not in the wider English-speaking world), to refer to weapons such as the FN FAL, G3 and M14, i.e. weapons that have most of the characteristics of assault rifles except for the fact they use a full-power cartridge (the 7.62x51mm - which is "full power" as it has ballistics almost identical to the .30-06) and so as a result are longer and heavier than most assault rifles. I have never seen the term "battle rifle" used as a general term to refer to bolt action military rifles such as the Mauser 98, Springfield, Lee-Enfield et al.

All this aside, the biggest problem with this article is that none of the sources directly relate to the use and origin of the term "battle rifle". It is all conjecture. Apologies if I've rained on anyone's parade. Strangways (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The M1917 was referred to as a "battle rifle" as early as 1919 (American Rifleman, Vol LXVI no 16, p.315). And in 1949, Infantry Journal (vols 64-65) referred to the M1 as "the U.S. battle rifle" (p24) and "the battle rifle par excellence" (p23). Those were two references I was able to find in a Google Books text search for "battle rifle"; I expect there are many more to be found from the WWI-era onwards. It seems clear that there is historical precedent for the term beyond the 1990s, which in my opinion calls into question the article's assertion that "battle rifle" is a neologism (unless we're considering an expression from 1919 as being "newly created"). --Capgar (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says the term originated in gun publications in the late 90's but I remember seeing it in such in the mid to late 80's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.163.249 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Any References?
Can anyone give a reference (e.g. from a FM) for the definition given for a "battle rifle"? Also, the second link at the end of the article is about a 5.56 rifle which is described as a "battle rifle" - which contradicts the definition given in the article.

I don't have any english-speaking military experience, but it strikes me as strange to group together fully-automatic personal rifles together with bolt-action ones, and to group other automatic rifles in another category just because of caliber (or even just muzzle velocity in the case of the AK-47).Causantin 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Morever, over half the hits on google for "battle rifle" (146.000) also contain the word "halo" (76.600). Whereas a search for assault rifle returns over a million hits with most of them referring to actual assault rifles. Causantin 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not an FM, but I do have a rather popular firearms magazine that defines battle rifle. From what it says though, there is a lot of confusion over the term.--LWF 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you really want, I'm sure I can find some references in e.g. the writings of Jeff Cooper. But look at it this way: there was a very specific WWII development of a new type weapon, the most distinctive feature of which was its reduced power cartridge.


 * All weapons that retained a late 1880's style smokeless "high power" cartridge (ignoring the important move from large round nose to medium weight spitzer bullets) have more in common with each other than they have with this newfangled strumgewehre AKA "assault rifle", even as battle rifles adopted the large box magazines, straight line recoil layout, and even full auto features of assault rifles (the Garand is the classic example of a semi-auto battle rifle designed before these became popular).


 * They are still fundamentally different in how you can employ them simply due to the power, e.g. the higher recoil has strong implications for rapid and full auto fire, the greater power for how far you can "reach out and touch someone", shoot through barriers, etc. Hga 11:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like some sources too. A google search for battle rifle either shows up the halo weapon, a mirror of wikipedia or use the term to refer to a service rifle. I can't help but think of "battle rifle" as a neologism, specifically when referring to guns like the G3, FAL etc. because they use 7.62 NATO rounds that are considered "full power". Should we now consider weapons like the M249 SAW a new class of weapon because it uses an assault rifle cartridge? --Philip Laurence 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though not a relible source i have seen the use of the word "battle rifle" in documnetrys that were made in 92. ForeverDEAD 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well laurence that doesnt make sense as it already is a SAW ForeverDEAD 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just that since we don't have any governments or firearm companies sources using the term "battle rifle" it meets the guidelines of a neologism. --Philip Laurence 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a source that might help. Heckler and Koch doesn't use the acknowledge the term battle rifle because as per their nomenclature, the G3, is named the Gewehr 3 because the 3 denotes a selective-fire assault rifle. Their naming scheme can be viewed here. --Philip Laurence 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The G3 was designated as such by the German armed forces, not Heckler and Koch.  And it was "G3" because it was the third candidate: there was the G1 --- the FN FAL --- which FN refused to license for production in Germany, the G2 which was the Swiss SG510 (7.62mm NATO version of the Swiss military Stgw57) and the G4 which was the Armalite AR10.


 * H&K's numbering convention had nothing to do with it. The G3 would have been designated the "HK31" if that was the case: the 3 indicating a select-fire magazine-fed rifle and the 1 indicating a 7.62mm NATO weapon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.105 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Google Books; there are a number of books on law, history, and ethics that mention the term "battle rifle", such as Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Chadwick, Massacre, Murder, Mayhem , McGregor, and one tentatively military refernce, War on Film: Military History Education, Videotapes, Motion Pictures, and Related Audiovisual Aids by Maj. F. A. Eiserman, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS.  The oldest mention I see is also a military reference, in Hatcher's Notebook , from 1962, who said "the Garand was unquestionably a better battle rifle than the Johnson".  The problem is, since this is a relatively recent term, all the works are copyrighted and it's hard to get a good feel for the use in the limited views you get out of Google Books.  However, someone with access to a good library could then go check the complete reference.  scot 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And wait, there's more! Here's a government solicitation: "	Notice of Intent to Conduct a Sole Item/Sole Source Procurement for22 ea Knights PN 23241 SR-25 battle rifle with 16” barrel and 5 ea Knights PN 21035-1 MK-11 MOD-0 20” barrel", from here.  scot 21:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Procurement information for the Navy, showing the United States Navy Mark 14 Mod 0 Enhanced Battle Rifle used by the SEALs and Marines: http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/08pres/proc/WPN_Book.pdf  scot 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "the Garand was unquestionably a better battle rifle than the Johnson" - yes, but what we have been discussing is using the term battle rifle to refer to "assault rifles" using "full-powered" ammo. As i've said, dictionaries even use the term battle rifle to describe service rifles. --Philip Laurence 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's me again. I have stumbled on another source, Encyclopedia Brittanica. Their entry on assault rifles contradicts Wikipedia's assault rifle/battle rifle divide (highlighted in bold). Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.  I am only aware of 4 "battle rifles"; the G3, FAL, CETME and Sig 510 - all of which are considered not to be assault rifles because they happen to use 7.62 NATO. Perhaps 7.62 NATO is considered a "reduced power" cartridge? --Philip Laurence 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 7.62x51mm is NOT a "reduced power" cartridge by any definition. While the 7.62x51mm is shorter than the .30-06, it is no less powerful in the standard military loading.  The .30-06 started out as the .30-03, firing a long, round nosed bullet, much like the .30-40 Krag.  This was obsolete already, as most countries had already switched to lightweight spitzer bullets, so the .30-06 was slightly modified (shorter neck for the shorter bullet) and loaded with faster powder to push the light bullet at a higher velocity.  The case capacity was left the same--as a matter of fact it was slightly increased, since there was less bullet taking up space--which left the .30-06 over-capacity for the standard military round.  This makes the .30-06 such a great sporting cartridge, as it can handle a huge range of bullet weights, but it's not terribly efficient.  Early attempts to adapt the .30-06 to light automatic rifles resulted in reliability problems, so the cartridge was shortened.  The shorter case had identical ballistics to the spitzer .30-06 loads, and was more reliable in modified Garand actions, and the combination became the 7.62x51mm and the M-14.  The 7.62x51mm is more powerful than the .303 British, and equal to the 7.62x54R and the 7.92x57mm, so it is by no means an "intermediate cartridge".  The definitive intermediate cartridge was the 7.92x33mm, made by shortening the 7.92x57mm, so that clearly puts the 7.62x51mm into the "full power service cartridge" category.  There ARE some "intermediate cartridges" based on the .30-06/7.62x51mml; they're found chambered in metallic silhouette handguns (limited to 14" barrel length) and benchrest shooting rifles (who are very concerned with maximizing volumetric efficiency, which helps consistency).  They are the .308 x 1.5 (38mm case length), the nearly identical .30 BR (39mm case length), and a few other very similar wildcats, either based directly on the 7.62x51mm or the shorter .308 x 1.5.  scot 15:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AK-47?
The AK-47 is not among the list of battle rifles, yet it uses the 7.62 by 39 mm cartridge, as do the G3, M14, FN SCAR H and several others. If the caliber is the main difference between an assault and a battle rifle, why is the AK-47 considered an assault rifle and not a battle rifle in this article?


 * Simple, the Heckler & Koch G3, M14 rifle, etc. don't use 7.62x39, they use 7.62x51 NATO. Completely different cartridges.--LWF (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

how are we to decide what is considered assault or battle rifle? it would be more appropriate to designate battle rifles non-intermediate assault rifles. if i remember correcly, 7.62 was used when assault rifles were being accepted for the first time and countries realized that smaller cartridges would work better. i'm new to wikipedia too and even i know that this needs references to be accepted. what gun company uses battle rifle to describe their guns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.198.66 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you can't just go by the calibre of the weapon - 7.62x39, like 7.92 Mauser Kurz is an intermediate round because despite being full calibre, it has a greatly reduced propellant charge - a hypothetical Soviet Battle Rifle (perhaps some version of the AVB-7.62) would have fired 7.62 Russian which, like 7.62NATO and similar rounds is very much full power. Confusion is added by a variety of different languages and classification systems as to what is a battle rifle and what isn't - the term exists and does seem to more or less mean "assault rifle that fires a full power cartridge", but it's not exactly universal by any means. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this definition of battle rifle being a large sized "assault rifle that fires a full power cartridge". FN FALs and G3s are assault rifles and they also are available with full auto capability. Both are controllable in full auto fire due to their weight helping to absorb the recoil of the 7.62mm NATO rounds. So a battle rifle is a variant of assault rifle, not a separate distinction from assault rifle. Walterego (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The German Bundeswehr actually calls the G28 "schweres Sturmgewehr", Heavy assault rifle FSbiran (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The primary difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle is that an assault rifle is controllable in automatic fire; that is to say that multiple shots can be fired in full auto and multiple hits can be expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.163.20 (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC) shouldn't CM901 be on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABruhRandomUser (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You never shot a 7.62x39mm gun in full auto, it's really impractical even if you are a big strong guy FSbiran (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition Problems
As far as I can tell, there is no general agreement on what a battle rifle actually is. Furthermore, there also seems to be no source that explicitly defines the term "battle rifle". I even found an article from the Center for Army Lessons Learned that reads "As a full-length battle rifle, the M16 ...".

I thus assume that the definition of the battle rifle in the current article is to contrast the term "assault rifle", which does have an explicit definition (see its article). However, the fact that "Infantry rifle" redirects here indicates that someone believes that "Infantry rifle" and "Battle rifle" are synonymous.

Therefore, I am going to change the redirect for "Infantry rifle" to "Service rifle". I am NOT going to change the bulk of the article as there are few direct references for the term "battle rifle". However, I believe that this article *should* be changed to reflect it as a classification since a number of firearms articles have the phrase "Classification: Battle Rifle" in their infoboxes.

--Nutarama (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a new section to explain the issue, even if I can not find anything to clarify/solve the problem it. As it has been 4 years and the talk a page can not find a suitable answer, I think that fact should be in the article.(Whoever can up with the term works in marketing, or was smoking crack and misunderstood Patton's quote about the m1 garand. :-D )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.75.182 (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/ar.html
 * Hardly definitive, but it sums up one point of view.

A Little Doubt
If a Battle rifle like the Stoner 63 (in his Rifle version) or the IMBEL MD-97A2 be rechambered to 5.56 NATO, it will continue be a Battle Rifle?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypher3 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. 5.56x45mm NATO is an Assault Rifle cartridge. The IMBEL MD-97A2 rechambered to an intermediate-recoil cartridge would be an Assault Rifle derived from a Battle Rifle. TTK (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Back-formed term from lousy hack writers
"Battle rifle" is a creation of the US gun press. It has never been used by the world's militaries. It was a back-formed response to the term "assault rifle" which became common in the US gun press in the 1980s as multiple companies began to manufacture copies of the AR15 and as semi-auto versions of the AK-47 began to be imported from China, Egypt and Finland. "Assault rifle" of course being the English translation of Hitler's term "Sturm Gewehr" that he used to designate the MP44 carbine, which fired a reduced-power "intermediate" cartridge rather than a "full-power" cartridge like the 7.9mm Mauser.

A simple definition would be "select-fire or semi-automatic rifle that fires a 'full-power' cartridge of the sort developed prior to World War I." Detachable box magazines may or may not be necessary --- the M1 Garand and its "en bloc clip" haven't prevented it being described as a "battle rifle." Note here that the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, despite being adopted in 1957, is functionally almost identical to the .30-06 cartridge it replaced and should be regarded as a "pre-WW I" cartridge for this matter. Same caliber, same weight of bullet, nearly identical velocity. The 7.65mm Argentine/Belgian Mauser cartridge --- developed in 1891 --- was nearly identical to the 7.62mm NATO, differing only in minor details of bullet diameter and length and taper of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.105 (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you're partly correct. Edward C. Crossman, (U.S. Army Captain, NRA writer, noted small arms expert, etc.) (1889-1939) used the term "battle rifle" to refer to the M1903 Springfield and the M1917 Enfield as far back as 1919. "Battle rifle" refers to more than just the caliber--it refers to a heavy rifle that can also be used in what is now called "close quarters combat" (bayoneting, butt-stroking, etc.) for which the modern "assault rifle" is totally unsuitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.90.218 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Battle Rifle is a term that only makes sense if it is a kind of Assault Rifle, a sub-category of assault rifle. If butt-stroking is part of what makes a weapon a battle rifle, then any assault rifle with a wooden or heavy stock would be ideal. Plus numerous weapons that wikipedia editors have asserted are battle rifles have lighter plastic stocks, such as the HK 417, G3, FN SCAR, AR-10.Walterego (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think a Battle Rifle could be a sub-category of Assault Rifle, because both types of rifle are defined in part by their calibers, and these parts of their definitions are contradictory. An Assault Rifle chambers a low-recoil cartridge (either a heavy bullet with low charge, per 7.62x39mm, or a light bullet with higher charge, per 5.56x45mm), while a Battle Rifle fires a high-recoil "full-power" cartridge (such as 7.62x54R or 7.62x51mm).  These are not the only criteria that matter, but I am focusing on them here because they prevent either from being a subcategory of the other. Perhaps this could be generalized by characterizing the cartridge by its recoil momentum ((bullet mass + propellant mass) * velocity), and specifying a range of momentum in the definition? TTK (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Battle Rifle could be a sub-category of Assault Rifle, because only the Battle Rifle is defined by its caliber. The term Assault Rifle encompasses both "full-power" cartridges like 7.62x51mm and lower powered cartridges like 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm and others. The entry for Assault Rifle at Encyclopaedia Britannica cites as examples of assault rifles: "Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3." So the range of intermediate-power cartridges includes 7.62mmx51, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Furthermore all European manufacturers of Assault Rifles such as FN and HK, explicitly label their 7.62x51mm select fire rifles as Assault Rifles. HK identifies both the G3 and HK 417 as Assault Rifles, and FN even has "assault rifle" in the name of the FN SCAR-H (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle - Heavy). Additional sources for this are the top 3 google results for "heckler and koch 417" (other than wikipedia) which all categorize the HK 417 as an assault rifle. Googling Heckler and koch g3 pulls up this top 3 result, the popular guns encylopedia World Guns, which categorizes the G3 as an assault rifle .Walterego (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is very little difference between 7.62x51 mm and 30-06, it is Not a reduced recoil cartridge, IIRC it is more powerful than the UK's .303. Add in most M14's and Commonwealth FAL's were issued for semi only (like Garands) because of lack of control from heavy recoil and they aren't really select fire don't fit in as assault rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.163.249 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
Where in the ref I can find the sentecned ""Battle rifle" is a post-World War II term for military service rifles that are fed ammunition via detachable magazines and fire a full-powered rifle cartridge." proofed?--Sanandros (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in article
The start of the article has "Battle rifle" is a post-World War II term for military service rifles that are fed ammunition via detachable magazines", yet later gives the M1, which does not use a box mag, as an example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.0.196.219 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Heavy assault rifle designation?
I found a video on YouTube, published by the Bundeswehr channel where the HK 417 is refered to as a "schweres Sturmgewehr"= heavy assault rifle. Was such a designation used anywhere else? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP6vEAt9YeU FSbiran (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)