What is a Battle Rifle?
All the best firearms history channels streaming to all major devices:
weaponsandwar.tv
"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
All the best firearms history channels streaming to all major devices:
weaponsandwar.tv
utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
"Weapon seller! I need your _strongest_ rifle! I'm going into *battle!"* "I can't sell you my strongest rifle! You can't handle my debate about the nomenclature!"
What a crossover!
MY BATTLE RIFLES ARE ONLY FOR THE STRONGEST SHOULDERS AND YOURS ARE OF THE WEAKEST.
"You can't handle the truth!" 🤬
@@pb68slab18 YOU CANT. HANDLE THE RECOIL!!!😅
“Weapon seller, Enough of these games. Im going out to battle. And i need your strongest rifle.”
It’s the standard-issue UNSC rifle that fires the 9.5x40mm cartridge with 3-round burst, obviously…
Pairs phenomenally with a fully charged plasma pistol too
Master Chief agrees...
@@angrysammich5762 That pairing is formally known by professional military historians in the academic world as "1337 combo lololoollolol"
In addition the assault rifle fires 7.62x51, so would that not be a battle rifle. It fits all 4 categories listed too, whereas the br55 with it's lower calibre only fits to 3 categories
Man I just watched that video from Garand Thumb last night 😂
When I think of what a battle rifle is, there's another requirement that comes to mind: "Carried by a regular infantryman, with no specialized role within the squad". That excludes DMRs and the BAR from being battle rifles.
Absolutely, I think this is the real definition.
except BARs were orginally intended as being the regular infantryman's weapon.
I think I agree with you. The BAR on the other hand. Eh. It was originally made for a standard issue rifle for the average infantry but according to the sources it was too heavy, due different military tactic, doctrine and how the military see things back then the BAR became a squad support weapon. This is just me. When I think of battle rifles I think of M14, Scar-H or FAL. You know those "iconic" 7.62x51 NATO selective fire rifles, they shoot full power cartridges and are box magazine. I also believe that BAR should be in the "battle" rifle list. When come to rifles like M1 Garand, 98k, STV-40, Enfield, Springfield 03 or as such I just think of them as "rifles". No special terms. When come to DMR I think of their background history. SVD, M24, H&K MSG90 or as such. They are built for DMR sniping.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Intended, but weren't used in that role in the end. I can intend to use a bazooka as a machine gun, but if it doesn't pan out (for obvious reasons), is it a machine gun? :)
Agreed, I would say it has to be practical as a standard issue weapon in order to qualify as a battle rifle rather than a more specialised weapon. So it needs to have reasonable weight, reasonable length, be reasonably ergonomic for an average infantryman, and be designed to facilitate other infantryman needs (e.g. attaching a bayonet or firing rifle grenades). I would agree with Ian that being designed for use with an optic does not preclude battle rifle status; for example, the L85 was designed for standard use with the SUSAT optic fitted, and that has been the norm for British soldiers since the 80s now. It's obviously still an assault rifle. Then again, DMRs are typically fitted out for longer range sharpshooting, so, more specialist. There is a lot of grey area here but I would agree your typical DMR or "automatic rifle" (BAR) is not really a battle rifle, at least not in the way most people mean, because they're used as support weapons for the unit rather than as the standard infantryman's weapon.
I love the term Battle Rifle, it implies that there is a Peace Rifle
Truce rifle
Electro shocker rifle
Anything designed purely for competition?
Peace through superior firepower 😉
@@mrkeogh Strength through joy? 😲 (Kraft durch Freude) OK, maybe that's not what the Nazis meant. 😉
Anytime Ian produces one or multiple weapons from under his desk during a video, I imagine some small ironclad goblin frantically searching through an extensive armoury before finding the exact model and subtype and hastily placing it on Ians lap.
It's like the Ferell brothers (Paul and Roy) getting their arms from a pocket in their clothes.
that had me cracking up how he was just producing rifle after rifle from apparently nowhere
And from now on, so do I...
As an instructor taking weapon lessons we were taught how to mask movement like telll the recruits to write down a heading or take off their webbing, move chairs, etc. In that time you’d silently produce the next item or have a weapon ready and they’d have no clue how it got there. Ian has likely a shelf below the table with his weapons waiting on him or it’s goblins like you say 😁
@@shaider1982you mean Harrell brothers? Otherwise, yeah.
Honestly, I want a "Ian's pov" of the floor, or maybe he's just using his powers to pull guns outta the ground?
Gun Jesus makes water into guns
Jesus made water into wine. Gun Jesus makes stuff on the ground into a weapon.
He has a small team of dwarfs who shuttle things around for him.
He's also wearing wooden sandals
@@kevinoverduin3989 Possibly made from old Elbonian Riflestocks.
Personally, I feel like the BAR being open bolt pushes it out of 'battle rifle' territory and into 'automatic rifle'/'light machine gun,' but I could understand arguments to the contrary. Where the going gets difficult is that Ian's holding up a closed-bolt copy of a BAR...
This is a very good point
yes, perhaps it needs a 5th criteria, that it fires from a closed bolt.
@@michaelreifenstein2114 For me, there is no way the BAR can be a battle rifle, as it was designed to fulfill a role and this role required greater sustained fire capability than an ordinary rifle, therefore, it is an automatic rifle (if we compare it with the LMG's from of its time you can also see that it is not an LMG, as it is not a crew-served weapon, it was designed to be fired from the hip/shoulder and not from a bipod/tripod and it was also more maneuverable than the LMG's of its time, but in exchange for this maneuverability it sacrificed sustained fire capability). Another relevant thing to classify a battle rifle is that its role requires relatively accurate shots (obviously less than other rifles focused on this characteristic), even more so considering its extended effective range (in relation to rifles with an intermediate caliber) and certainly an open bolt it's not a feature that contributes to better fulfilling the role (one of the things that I think is important in the classification of weapons, but that is sometimes neglected, is the role of the weapon, as every weapon is designed to fulfill certain roles that the designer has in mind and it's these roles that define what characteristics the weapon must have to fulfill these roles. Therefore, it is not just the fact that it has certain characteristics that we should automatically classify a certain type of weapon, but also what roles it was designed to fulfill).
It’s too heavy for shoulder fire too…. The thing is a beast.
@drewski5730 on one of the other gun channels there was a comparison between the bar and the bren. I guess if the bren is a lmg, the bar must be one too.
Totally blown opportunity. This subject should have been covered in a Broadway musical format.
I'm thinking a patter song from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
No, u just want to see me in a tutu…
Damnit. Now I'm thinking about Mel Brooks producing a musical " Batttle riiiiiifle....or us it just bad gas...." lol😮
Best comment 🤣
Alternate definition it’s a battle rifle if you can’t see what you’re doing or hear anything for an hour after trying to shoot it on full auto
Lol. True.😂 Also: a battle rifle is it not if it feels like a children plastic gun. 😂
Sir, that's HK53.
@@titaniumwo1f390 That's not a battle rifle, that's a flashbang generator that happens to have a linear danger radius in line with the muzzle.
L1A1. When I was trained by the Federal Defence, I still trained with the G3. In all of my decade of service, I shot it full-auto TWICE, and the 2nd time, the shooting referee told me after half a magazine that he'd only count a burst if it was at least 2 shots (it is very easy to fire the G3 with "1 round bursts"). I think full-auto is optional. I don't consider the M1 Garant a battle rifle because 1) there IS such a thing as "too powerful cartridge to be a battle rifle", which for me barely makes rifles in 8x57 Infanterie Spitz qualify, but .30-06 or .600 Niro Express simply fall outside of acceptable ranges; and b) a detachable and easily exchangable magazine with a capacity of at least 20 rounds. "Not hearing anything for 1 hour", on the other hand, is something I think the AKR-74/AKSU should also manage, as the short barrel most probably will make the report very loud. Or the AR/Colt M177 "if I grow up I want to be an M16", which originally had a barrel attachment to modify the report to something akin to an AKM.
Yeah, I fired an "AR" years ago which, at the time, in Australian Army parlance, was a heavy-barrel, automatic SLR with a 30 round magazine. Which, to everyone else not Australian is a heavy barrel, automatic FAL... With a bipod. And a 30 round magazine. Of course, I fired it from the shoulder because it was, after all an AR. An "Automatic Rifle". And you fire rifles from the shoulder. So I did. Firing from the shoulder certainly confirmed it's automatic-ness. But it also disproved that it was, in any way, a rifle. The recoil through the heavy wooden stock and lack of grip on the hand grip that the bipod seemed designed specifically to prevent you from gripping meant that, after the first two rounds, it was really more a light anti-aircraft gun... ... Or, as one waggish Sergeant called it, a "Recoilful Rifle"
Anything that turns cover into concealment.
M242 Bushmaster Autocannon?
120mm Rheinmetal cannon?
Sram-T Air-to-surface missile with a W91 nuclear warhead?
@@tandemcharge5114 Nah, that's just a concealed carry.
@@BasedBebs Nah that's clearly a hand grenade. It's clearly addressed "To Whomever It May Concern".
I've heard multiple firearms experts say they don't like the term "Battle Rifle" and i never got why. Granted it's not a concrete definition like "Assault Rifle," but it still seems like a useful bit of terminology to differentiate a G3 or FAL from an M16, or the former 2 from a Kar 98k. Battle rifles weren't just a one off thing, they represent a whole generation of NATO firearms and are still used today. It just seems wrong to not have a classification for them specifically.
Not just NATO.
Lots of "experts" aren't capable of forming logical organizational frameworks.
Honestly it's not a complex concept, but even Ian's video here seems to make it far messier and more complex than it really needs to be. Partly due to mixing up terms from different eras (WWI/II "Light Machine Gun" is an entirely different term to Cold War and onward "Light Machine Gun", for one). An Assault Rifle requires an intermediate cartridge, select fire, and a detachable magazine. A Battle Rifle is simply the same but with a full-power cartridge. It's actually a very well established term, but any time I hear someone try to claim otherwise it always comes along with not quite... understanding the term? I don't want to sound too harsh here, but this combo of "isn't an official term" and "confusingly means all these different things" when it actually doesn't always seems to go hand in hand. Not unlike that return of "Assault Rifle is a loaded term (in the US)", when it's... not. Or rather, the term one is looking for there is "assault weapon", which is meaningless loaded political nonsense. This gets combined with that "different era" issue, and we have the "Battle Rifle or Light Machine Gun" question, which is a textbook apples-to-oranges comparison. The BAR is a Light Machine Gun or Automatic Rifle by the definition of LMG at the time (WWI/II) which was "not a Heavy Machine Gun". That is to say Heavy Machine Guns were emplaced, Light Machine Guns were portable; it was about weight and mobility. Conversely, for Cold War / modern terms, alongside Assault Rifle / Battle Rifle we have Light Machine Gun (intermediate cartridge), Medium Machine Gun (full-power cartridge), or Heavy Machine Gun (large-calibre, like .50). The modern terms are based on cartridge, thus completely incompatible with the old use. So while the period question was "Is the BAR a Light Machine Gun or an Automatic Rifle?" (read: machine gun or normal shoulder rifle with full-auto), the exact same question in modern terms is "Is the BAR a Medium Machine Gun or a Battle Rifle?".
@@BleedingUranium Would you consider a DMR to be a battle rifle?
I'm always impressed with amount of weapons Ian can have sitting in his lap at any given point.
Cool user name thumbs up
@@joshuahawkins2743 🙌
There’s an assistant handing him guns from below.
Ian is a legit GTA character.
He is gun yesus
Ian’s reference collection is approaching Fireplace Guy levels
And if he doesn't have it he probably has friends who do
@@wilsonj4705 Such as Jonathan Ferguson Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history... :D
Get back to me when it approaches the size of the collection John Ferguson gets to play with :p. /s
@@DavidRoberts01341 you mean THE Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in the UK, which houses a collection of thousands of iconic weapons from throughout history?!
I love seeing the guns pop-up from below frame like some super awesome children's book
I think that battle rifles can be further subdivided into "1st generation" or "old world" and "2nd generation". 1st gen are characterized by things like: semi pistol grip, meant to be reloaded with clips, originally meant to be semi-auto only. Examples: M1, SVT, MAS-49, FN-49, AG-42. 2nd generation are characterized by things like having a pistol grip, meant to be reloaded with spare mags, originally envisioned as select fire. Examples: AR-10, FAL, G3. EDIT: The M-14 kind of straddles the line between the two
For myself, I don't consider the first service self-loaders to be "battle rifles" because one of the main reasons the term "battle rifle" came about was to distinguish NATO and Soviet firearms philosophies after the Second World War. The Soviet Union quickly settled on the Assault Rifle with the AK, but because NATO did not commit to a StanAg intermediate cartridge, the new NATO rifles, mostly derived from Assault Rifle designs but now not using Intermediate ammunition, needed to be defined somehow.
I really only see the box magazines versus clips as a meaningful distinction between the two. The ergonomics of fighting rifles should probably be viewed as it's own independent evolution from the mechanical functionality and ballistics. For example, in WW1 only some machine guns had pistol grips, by WW2 submachine guns had them and the earliest assault rifles did. The evolution just continued until we were dropping M14's into Sage chasis and every new rifle has a pistol grip.
Agreed, classic vs modern. Classic is fully wooded 1-piece stock.
I almost feel like the first gen definition could include wooden stocks.
SVT/AVT too
Camera settings: Auto Audio Mic: Camera Lighting type: Basement It gives a sort of “we’re here for information” vibe and I’m okay with it as long as there’s no VHS scan lines
Coward, the VHS scan lines only add to the informativeness
My old Lithgow pattern Aussie L1A1 instantly springs to mind.
So basically an Australian-made FAL ;-)
@@TheIndianalain yes, but we don't call them that here. The FAL is typically select fire, the L1A1 is not. For a FAL pattern, you need the L1A2. Just like the AK series, FAL rifles are known by different designations the world over.
And the Brown Bess? Or something rifled.
Stop bragging bro.😊
Yet its big brother the L2A1 fits in the Light Machine Gun category better
Discounting the semi/full-auto criteria, I once heard that the 1898 Mauser was a hunting rifle, the 1903 Springfield was a target rifle, and the SMLE was a BATTLE RIFLE!
The SKS is an extremely light Anti-Tank rifle since it is based on the PTRS-41.
@@glandhoundactually no, ptrs was first
@@lardomcfarty9866 Simonov was already designing the SKS when they suddenly needed an antitank rifle. The PTRS was adopted sooner but the mechanism was taken from the SKS blueprints.
So your telling me a 7.62×39 can penetrate tank armor
@@joshuahawkins2743 as long as it is only 6mm.
@@Anon_Amous please explain do you mean the thickness of the armor plating on the tank
I would say the definition is most obvious when discussing militaries that purposefully made the switch on their standard issue rifle from larger to smaller caliber... It was usually a dedicated switch from Battle to Assault rifle. Examples such as, the U.S. switching from M14 to M16. Germany switching from G3 to G36. Etc.
Something informative to listen to on the ride home from work? Yes please
When I asked this question in the comments, I absolutely did not expect a 15 minute video going into such detail, thanks Ian! This is likely going to come in handy with my gamedev aspirations, too, seeing as it does a great job at differentiating it's role from that of assault rifles point by point. :)
Bravo that somebody entering game development is learning about guns. No more MP5 being more deadly than a battle rifle.
Can I suggest "military pattern" can be defined by how the rifle can be field stripped, a "military pattern" rifle requires very few tools, if any, pins are captive (probably) as are springs, small loose components, screws, springs are not remove for field stripping/cleaning . Items such as firing pins can be replaced without specialist knowledge or tools and adjustments which should be carried out by an armourer are difficult or impossible for a user to do either on purpose or accidentally.
a very interesting thought. if it can be maintained while blindfolded in under 2 minutes kind of thing? it is battle worthy, if it needs a machine shop to maintain no military should adopt it?
@@ubertuna1 I believe it strips to 9 components, in about 5 minutes, using one special tool, normally housed in the butt stock. Compare that to a Browning BAR (hunting) Rifle which is approximately 25 components and requires 2 different sized screwdrivers, punch, and maybe a hammer.
I think Ian's featured many guns that were adopted by various militaries (and even more that were tested but not adopted) that would fail those criteria... =)
M50 and M55 Reising were both military issued weapons and had small loose parts and loose pins ,although both were SMGs rather than battle or assault rifles they both were front line weapons in US service during WW2
@@tda2806still IMO too much force required lifting the trigger guard. I don't consider the M1 Garand Rifle a battle rifle (but I am very sure the USA will eventually adopt the "M1 battle rifle", together with the M1 quick release sling, the M1 optical sight (magnified) and the M1 optical sight (unmagnified), to be cleaned by the M1 cleaning kit), as it doesn't have a detachable 20 round magazine. But it's also a question of deployment tactics. The M1 Rifle was used like the repeating rifles before, while the M14, G3 or G1 (FN FAL) really took advantage of tactics tailored to this kind of rifle. Case in point, when the USA made the M1 Garant into a battle rifle, they gave it a detachable magazine, a MUCH less powerful cartridge, and called it "M14".
I didn't see an H&K G3 get picked up in the video. 😢. Seriously though- another great video from Ian! Thank you!
Ian sit and talk vids are my favorite
Designated Marksman Rifle is an interloping subspecies which can be seen as a Battle Rifle IF it is chambered in full power cartridge... which is the most common case (pun intended).
Not really as only limited issue
Assault rifles can be DMRs Battle rifles can also be DMRs Assault rifles are not battle rifles Battle rifles are not assault rifles Clear as mud?
“Common case” is more of a double entendre than pun, which makes it a Trouble Entendre (pun intended). Sorry to be so Punishing.
Designated Marksman Rifle is intended to be employed by designated marksman, an assault rifle is designed to use intermediate cartridges to fulfill sufficient requirements to be able to used effectively at shorter ranges with lower recoil and high capacity (this makes it more effective at suppression and repeated hits)... a battle rifle is intended to use higher power cartridges to increase its effective range while also having full auto for closer quarters (this makes it more suited for barrier penetration and for hits on exposed enemies at longer distances with single shots as opposed to saturation fire, also why they are preferred as DMRs)
More specifically, the actual issue it's it's mixing "technical type" with "doctrine type". As in, "pistol/handgun/revolver" are technical terms, that's what they are in a vaccuum. As opposed to "sidearm", which is a doctrine/role term; it's not what it is, but what it's intended to be used for by a given group. Assault Rifle, Battle Rifle, Light Machine Gun, Medium Machine Gun, Heavy Machine Gun (etc) are all technical terms, as are slightly more specific technical terms like Bolt Action Rifle, Semi-Auto Rifle, Pump Action Shotgun (etc). General Purpose Machine Gun, Designated Marksman Rifle, Sniper Rifle (etc) are ROLE terms, not technical ones.
The SKS reminds me of the Fedorov Avtomat. The Fedorov had the concept of being an assault rifle by using a weaker cartridge so that full auto fire from the shoulder would be more viable, but it's still technically not an assault rifle because the 6.5mm Arisaka is considered a full-power round (albeit a weaker one). The SKS is the opposite, being used like a battle rifle even though its round is too weak to be considered one. They're cuspers, I guess.
Since the SKS is a carbine, perhaps "battle carbine" would be the appropriate term. On the other hand, the 7.62x39 is way more powerful than a .30 carbine, and closer ballistically to a .30-30 (which is a pretty stout round). So, I agree that the SKS is hard to pigeon-hole. Then again, the K98 is called a "carbine," and it sure fires a full power cartridge, but it's bolt action, which seems to eliminate it as a "battle rifle." I don't know, it's giving me a headache.
@jeffnelson1672 Something like battle carbine sounds cool... but then there's the problem of carbine being used mostly just to distinguish between standart-lenght and shortened rifle. I mean, M4 is a carbine, but it's still an assault rifle... In my opinion, SKS, M1 carbine, or Czech VZ 52/57 just don't really fit in either the battle rifle or assault rifle definition. So, they either aren't any special category (which really wouldn't be such a big deal IMHO) or they need some new category. Perhaps something like intermediate rifle or transitional rifle - no longer an old school full-powered battle rifle like Garand, but not yet an assault rifle like AK... more like something between.
Thank's Ian. As always, educational, and entertaining. Thank you for posting.
Thanks Ian!
Thank you Mr Ian, you clear my doubt
I think Othais put it best in a Q&A with you, talking about the "first" assault rifle, it's a matter of doctrine as much as it is the rifle itself. The battle rifle has a much larger and more varied role than assault rifles do
Ian -- beyond weapons you are educating people how to ask questions, define terms and think logically. Thank you.
I would personally add a fifth requirement, that is detachable magazines. My train of thought here is that stripper clip loading is a throroughly WWI and WWII feature of bolt action rifles, and while the SKS and M1 Garand are semi-auto they still use stripper clips. Yes, I know SKS magazines are technically detachable, at least the bigger ones, but stripper clips are still often used for the SKS. You could go either way depending on the configuration. The reason for drawing the line there as opposed to pure self-loaders is just that stripper clips are used on rifles with 5-10 rounds capacity only, more 5 than 10, and if you get 10 rounds its two clips of 5 rounds, so the process of loading is less convenient and thus slower. Its a trade-off for simplicity thats perfectly okay for a give-it-to-everyone type of basic bolt action rifle, or even basic semi-auto rifle in case of Garand and SKS, but I think those are a rung lower on the ladder of rifle development. Again, just my opinion.
How I would define "battle rifle". - Uses full rifle cartridge like 7,62x54mmR or 7,62x51mm. - Semi- or fully automatic operation - Detachable magazine of at least ten rounds - Meant to arm regular troops As summary it is upgrade to bolt-action rifles. Soldier shoots singular aimed shots with battle rifle.
Doesn't need to have a detachable magazine
@@foodistzen It is flexible definition. M1 Garand had internal eight round magazine. SKS uses intermediary cartridge in internal ten round magazine and both were used as battle rifles.
@@vksasdgaming9472 Yeah, but you specifically required a detachable mag.
@@jimmiller5600 If modern battle rifle is made it would have those. M14 had all that.
Detachable mag is absolutely a requirement, just as it is for Assault Rifle. Full-auto as well, bar extremely specific cases where a nation locked an otherwise full-auto rifle to semi (read: British FAL). Battle Rifle as a term is the same as Assault Rifle, just with full-power ammo. Both are (effectively) Cold War to modern terms, and get messy if you try to apply them to WWI/II guns, which predate the terms and design concepts. Not unlike how Light Machine Gun / Heavy Machine Gun meant something entirely different in WWI/II (weight/portability) than they do in that same Cold War to modern time frame (cartridge, just like AR/BR). Which is why "Battle Rifle or Light Machine Gun?" for the BAR is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Per its own time the question was "Light Machine Gun or Automatic Rifle?", whereas by modern standards the very same question (machine gun vs regular rifle with full-auto) is "Medium Machine Gun or Battle Rifle?".
I agree with you Sir. Great video and topic.
I think that this is an excellent approach to these classification discussions in general. The specific address of a definition versus a "you know it when you see it" label is especially appreciated! Like the "tomato is a fruit" argument. Fruit and vegetable each have their own distinct culinary uses, despite these colloquial labels not adhering to the botanical definition. Stating specific use of terms is very handy! Another good video, Ian.
Yeah the military rifle thing is a good basis. Cheers for the vid.
In Poland we had different nomenclature during WW2. We had CKM (ciężki karabin maszynowy) - heavy machine gun, LKM (lekki karabin maszynowy) - light machine gun and RKM (ręczny karabin maszynowy) - hand-held machine gun. The BAR, Chauchat and the rest of fully automatic battle rifles go to that category. By the way, in Poland we don't differentiate between rifle and carabine, we use term "karabin" for both.
Do you still use "karabin" for something like a full length Mosin-Nagant? There was a point in history when basically all infantry rifles became shorter than the older definition of carbine, which was a cavalry rifle, hence why few firearms nowadays get classified as rifles.
@@p_serdiuk Yes, "karabin" is also used for full length rifles. "Karabin" is military or sporting rifle. For hunting rifle we use word "sztucer" (from german "stutzen" - sawn off; from practice of hunting with military rifles with shorten barrels for convenience).
Great presentations, cheers for Ian
I love your Chanel. The history and information is great.
A battle rifle is everything an assault rifle is, but full power cartridge. That's really it.
Yep. It's a super simple definition made oddly convoluted here.
@@BleedingUraniumThis is what I tended to use as a définition, because of general beliefs. But well it's just like the smg it's based on the cartridge.... But a lot of lot of light machine guns can question this definition, and even with the somewhat well defined assault rifle category...
Nope, it's not full auto necessarily. But an assault rifle must be.
No, the assault rifle has three requirements : 1) It must be a serviceable infantry combat rifle. 2) It must be capable of full auto fire for use as a light machinegun. 3) In full auto, it must be controllable enough to be used as a submachinegun. It is the third requirement that forces the use of the intermediate cartridge, both to keep the weapon controllable and to be able to carry enough rounds for profligate expenditure. A paratrooper will need one of an infantry combat rifle, light machinegun, or submachinegun, once he reaches the initial rally point. As no plan survives contact with the enemy and paradrops scatter, the paratrooper will not know which specific weapon that he needs, before the commander in the field decides that he cannot wait for further stragglers. Having an assault rifle issued to everyone means that the plan will still have the right mix of weapons, even if it does not have the original mix of people. A full power cartridge makes the battle rifle unlikely to be useful for room clearing, even if it was full auto and the size and weight of a full power cartridge will even limit the battle rifle's usefulness as a light machinegun. While anyone could claim that the BAR, having been designed for walking fire, could be used to sweep a room, BAR gunners had designated ammunition carriers to keep them firing
@@richardbell7678 Role-wise you are correct. But every battle rifle is functionally identical to an assault rifle with the exception of cartridge.
to me, i basically agree entirely with what youve laid out, i'd also argue the SCAR H is a battle rifle, but, the BAR should more be retaining it's "auto rifle" name from the original purpose of design. in my mind, its bigger than a battle rifle, but smaller than a light machinegun, kind of like how i dislike calling the chauchat a light machinegun but also dont want to call it a battle rifle
Scar h is called heawy assault rifle by FN
The SCAR H is a BR
@@leneanderthalien it can be both, let FN be hipsters
@@leneanderthalien It doesn't matter the name, but what role the weapon was designed to play. Therefore, a SCAR H will not stop being a BR, just as the BAR will not stop being an automatic rifle.
@@leneanderthalien $3000+ and you get a polymer lower 🤣
Good video, Ian. Thanks.
Good criteria, Ian. I appreciate that he's doing these videos. I _despise_ the debate over terminology. Everyone in the world knows what a gun is and what it's meant to do.
For the BAR, I would say the WWI pattern 1918 is a battle rifle, since it is intended for shoulder fired. The A2 is designed as a support weapon system
For me, there is no way the BAR can be a battle rifle, as it was designed to fulfill a role and this role required greater sustained fire capability than an ordinary rifle, therefore, it is an automatic rifle (if we compare it with the LMG's from of its time you can also see that it is not an LMG, as it is not a crew-served weapon, it was designed to be fired from the hip/shoulder and not from a bipod/tripod and it was also more maneuverable than the LMG's of its time, but in exchange for this maneuverability it sacrificed sustained fire capability). Another relevant thing to classify a battle rifle is that its role requires relatively accurate shots (obviously less than other rifles focused on this characteristic), even more so considering its extended effective range (in relation to rifles with an intermediate caliber) and certainly an open bolt it's not a feature that contributes to better fulfilling the role (one of the things that I think is important in the classification of weapons, but that is sometimes neglected, is the role of the weapon, as every weapon is designed to fulfill certain roles that the designer has in mind and it's these roles that define what characteristics the weapon must have to fulfill these roles. Therefore, it is not just the fact that it has certain characteristics that we should automatically classify a certain type of weapon, but also what roles it was designed to fulfill).
@@gamerbg294 Mixing technical terms (Light Machine Gun, Pistol, Semi-Auto Rifle, Bolt Action Rifle) and doctrine/role terms (Squad Automatic Weapon, Sidearm, Designated Marksman Rifle, Sniper Rifle) never works out well, and doing this is where so much of this sort of confusion comes from.
@@BleedingUranium I disagree, because no weapon is created to meet mere characteristics (without an established purpose), but to fulfill a role that the designer has in mind (and from there the characteristics of the weapons are selected) and that is why weapon concepts can evolve, for example, the LMG's of the past technically speaking have mechanical characteristics different from today's LMG's, but the role they have to fulfill still remains (Personally, I think the SAW definition is stupid, as it can mixes many different weapon categories as if they had the same capabilities, because according to this classification an FN Minimi which is an LMG would be in the same category as an M27 IAR which is an automatic rifle).
@@gamerbg294 An M249 and M27 are both LMGs, yes. That's the technical term. In doctrine terms they have other things added on, in this case SAW/IAR. They are both of these things, at once but separately. Ditto for Bolt Action Rifle vs Sniper Rifle.
@@BleedingUranium Well, since they are in the same category, then try using both in the same scenarios to see if they are similar. Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense for you to say that they are both LMG's, you must be confusing them with both being machine guns.
I would say that the BAR is a battle rifle serving as a LMG role like the Mk39 EBR is a Battle Rifle serving as a DMR or a Mk12 is an Assault Rifle serving as a DMR. Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle are describing the gun and DMR or LMG are describing how it is fielded.
It's good (crucial, really) to split technical terms from doctrine terms like this, but it's also worth keeping in mind that WWI/II "LMG" and Cold War to modern "LMG" are very different terms. The former is about weight/portability and is awkwardly sort of both technical and doctrine (there weren't really split terms for each), where as by modern terms LMG/MMG/HMG is a technical term referring to cartridge (exactly like AR/BR), with terms like GPMG/SAW/etc being doctrine/role terms. So per its own era the BAR can be called an LMG (vs Automatic Rifle), but by modern terms that would be MMG (vs Battle Rifle). DMR is a great example of a doctrine term, yes. Ditto for Sniper Rifle, Sidearm, etc.
@@BleedingUranium MGs get weird too you can have the same MG be called a GPMG (general purpose MG) Medium MG, Heavy MG, or a Light MG all depending on how its fielded, the 1919 water-cooled were referred too as HMGs but the air cooled were MMGs and later in the war almost fielded in a LMG role. And to be fair you can call it what you want but the bro on the ground fighting gets to decide how its used manuals be dammed
I agree these definitions, my thinking exactly 👍
These videos have been great for educating people.
I am not much into pedantics, I would call any primary issued military rifle, as a battle rifle, because it is a rifle you take into battle, but this was all in all a very interesting sort of discussion.
I agree. This sometimes turns into pony car vs muscle car type debates.
I might consider the BAR a light machine gun. It seems too lengthy and unwieldy to be all that effective as a shoulder fired rifle, and since they all came with bipods it really gives the impression they were designed for suppression.
The bar is almost its own thing. Personally, I think leaving it to name itself is fine enough as an automatic rifle.
BAR was designed to be a LMG in an era where LMGs were a new thing. It may not look like one, but BAR is over 100 years old.
@@tangydiesel1886 Yeah I agree, the bar is super unique
@@XtreeM_FaiL no it was designed as a standard infantryman's "assault phase rifle" to allow the regular infantryman to use walking fire during an advance/assault. it ended up being too heavy and shoved rather ad hoc into the LMG role, but it was not designed to be in the LMG role.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Automatic rifles are part of the machine gun family (as well as LMG's, GPMG's, HMG's, etc.), as machine guns have to deliver greater sustained fire capacity than an ordinary rifle, however, what differentiates it from other machine guns is that it it has to be more maneuverable (mainly not being a crew-served weapon), but in exchange for a reduced fire capacity compared to other machine guns. So, the BAR is a automatic rifle, as if we compare it with the LMG's from of its time we can see that it's not an LMG, as it is not a crew-served weapon, it was designed to be fired from the hip/shoulder and not from a bipod/tripod and it was also more maneuverable than the LMG's of its time, but in exchange for this maneuverability it sacrificed sustained fire capability.
Fascinating video to convince us
personally, I think a full auto mode (or burst) is a necessary part of the battle rifle, without that you just have a marksman rifle. the grand was simply the semi auto version of the "rifle" armies had been using sense the 1880s and is there for before "battle rifle" being a useful term.
The sequel we have been waiting for.
Ian making this whole video just to show off his collection. Based
Flex'ing. Big-time.
I believe, that another criteria is important in this case. Whether the rifle was designed to be used by infantry. If the gun was issued to infantry only, or if it was designed the way it could be used by Marksmans (with optics provided) but primarily was issued to infantry, we can call it a battle rifle (G3, for instance). If the gun fits other BR criterias, but was intended to used by marksmans only and was not intended to be used by infantry in a 'trench combat', this gun would go as DMR, not as a battle rifle (SVD, for example).
I would classify DMR and other self-loading precision guns separately. Though I am aware many are built from a base rifle that undoubtedly is a battle rifle: such as the M14 or AR10.
I think it makes more sense to define battle rifle along the lines of an assault rifle, but in full power rifle caliber. I would call rifles like the M1, G43, SVT self-loading rifles instead, I think battle rifles at least need a high capacity detachable magazine, these ones are basically 19thC bolt-actions but self-loading. The Garand and the FAL are clearly different types of weapons in my opinion. I don’t understand why the difference between LMGs and battle rifles would be any more controversial than the difference between LSWs and assault rifles. I don’t see people calling RPKs assault rifles either.
I don't think the LSW/SAW definition is appropriate, I think the automatic rifle definition is much better.
The term you're looking for the latter group (intermediate cartridge MGs) is Light Machine Gun, but yes this is very much on point. Assault Rifle requires an intermediate cartridge, full-auto, and a detachable mag. Battle Rifles are the same but with full-power cartridges. Light Machine Guns (intermediate) are the MG "partners" to ARs, Medium Machine Guns (full-power) are the "partner" to BRs, and sadly no one's seriously tried to create a rifle "partner" to Heavy Machine Guns (high-calibre). These are all really Cold War to modern terms (and often concepts) so applying them retroactively tends to be awkward. Especially when people try to call Semi-Auto Rifles / Self-Loading Rifles (or worse, Bolt Action Rifles) as "Battle Rifles", which utterly defeats the purpose of the term. Moving back into WWI/II time also gives us the old definition of LMG/HMG (weight/portability, not cartridge) which makes things even messier if used together (as Ian tried to do here). For the eternal "Is the BAR a machine gun or a shoulder rifle with full-auto?" question, it's either "Light Machine Gun or Automatic Rifle?", or it's "Medium Machine Gun or Battle Rifle?", but not mixed together.
@@BleedingUranium Theoretically, there could be a "partner" for the HMG which would be the anti-materiel rifle (which is generally in the same caliber as the HMG, the problem is that there is no reason to have these two types of weapons working together, as the HMG to some degree does what an anti-materiel rifle does). Answering BAR's question, it is a machine gun, because it's an automatic rifle, which is part of the machine gun family (as well as LMG's, GPMG's, HMG's, etc.), since the distinguishing characteristic of machine guns is that their role is to promote a greater sustained fire capability than ordinary rifles, but automatic rifles are the machine guns that are most "close" to rifles, as they do not sacrifice as much maneuverability as other machine guns, but this also limits their sustained fire capability compared to other types of machine guns.
@@gamerbg294 If you made an M82 full-auto, it would qualify for the AR/BR's third "partner" type, yes, lol. But on that note, technical terms and doctrine/role terms are separate; mixing them together is why we often have so much confusion on these topics. By Cold War and onward terms, in a technical sense we have LMGs, MMGs, and HMGs (all defined by cartridge), while terms like GPMG/SAW/IAR/LSW/etc are doctrine/role terms. Like Pistol vs Sidearm.
@@BleedingUranium You speak as if a battle rifle necessarily had to be selective fire (and applying the same logic to the "3rd rifle pattern"), which is not the case. I think you didn't understand what I said, I didn't say that a weapon cannot be classified by its technical characteristics, but it is also necessary to consider the role it has to play, otherwise you will end up making the mistake of thinking that the M249 and M27 IAR are equivalent.
I always considered all the classic WW2 rifles as battle rifles, Garand, Springfield, Lee-Enfield, Mauser 98k, Mosin Nagant, For me it was always a matter of powerful military rifle hitting hard over longer distances.
I was having a debate with a friend about weapon definitions, and I used the mdr as an example because arguably it is a rifle, an assault rifle once it's made select fire and a battle rifle when it's chambered for .308
The way I see it, a battle rifle is usually a rifle weapon that fires full rifle bullets and has a rather long barrel. Anything that comes close to the old bolt action rifles or semi auto rifles (like the Garand) that fire full size bullets can be a battle rifle. Often they are semi automatic or built for semi auto or limited auto firing. If they are meant for full auto firing they usually fall in the range of LMG's. LMG's tend to be in a heavier weight category and more often than not have box or belt magazines, where a battle rifle uses an internal or external magazine that isnt as large capacity
So a machine rifle or automatic rifle with a minimum (practical) range of 800m?
@@coinsterrI guess! An LMG is meant to provide surpression with high volume of fire where an battle rifle can provide surpression, but provides more limited but accurate fire. I could be wrong but I think thats important. I think it gets easier to classify these weapons when you think about what makes a machine gun vs what makes a rifle
Yeah I feel like LMGs are more designed for suppression and longer firing and are therefore heavier with more ammo and a bipod, whereas battle rifles, if they are full auto, are lighter with reduced ammo capacity and typically no bipod and designed to be more mobile and slower firing for accurate shots
Even smooth bore can be a battle rifle 😁
No Refers to the 7.62 nato rifles after WW2
Thank you, Ian, for the fantastic exploration (and all the show & tell) of this subject and the offering of your highly qualified definition. It seems based more in modern terms than history. In my opinion, every nation in WWI fielded their own Battle Rifle, yet nearly none would meet your definition. I do think there could be a fifth criteria overlay that is historic context. The M1 Garand, in my own opinion, is the first MODERN Battle Rifle. But how could we possibly define the main armament of every other country involved in WWI or WWII as NOT Battle Rifles? What would you call those? It's a fascinating subject and sure to create much interaction and lots of brilliant content to come.
Huge fan of these sitting down theory videos.
*Johnathan Ferguson the Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, England. Has entered the chat*
I was always told a Battle Rifke is defined as 1. Rifle 2. Fed from a detachable box magazine 3. Full Power Rifke cartridge 4. Select fire capable. The last one in particular is why a M1 and AG-42 are not battle rifles, but a M14, BM-59, and STGW-57 are battle rifles
Yep, that's exactly it. Same requirements as an Assault Rifle, but full-power cartridge.
@BleedingUranium kind of. The common internation definition of a Assault Rifle are: 1. Capable of Select Fire. 2. Fed from a detachable box magazine. 3. Intermediate Caliber. (5.56 Nato, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 8mm Kurtz.) 4. Effective Range of atleast 300 Yards That last one in particular comes up because the M1 and M2 carbine don't qualify. Course that definition isn't too accurate anymore because you have 300 Blackout, which is meant to be CQC and not meant to be a ranged caliber
"Show and tell with Ian" is great!
I would say that a couple of features that are indicative of (if with exceptions) a battle rifle are detachable box magazines with a minimum of 20 or 15 round capacity and pistol grip.
Hello gun Jesus !❤
This format of videos feel like Ian is a father gathering his children to teach important life information and lessons.
That was the nicest finish I have ever seen on an FAL.
DMRs I've usually viewed as a Battle Rifle that has been slightly modified for precision improvements and then had an optic slapped on top.
a rifle, usually 18 inches or longer barrell, that fires a full size rifle cartridge usually .30 cal or bigger
I wouldn't consider barrel length an issue here. Otherwise it would rule out guns like the G3k, 13" Scar and SA58 which are clearly battle rifles just with shorter barrels
I disagree, is there really a difference between a G3 with a 16 inch barrel verses an 18 inch barrel? Or how about a 12.5 inch ar10 vs an 24 inch ar10? Mechanically they are the same guns so why would barrel length matter for classification? If any thing they would be sub-categories of a battle rifle, a infantry pattern which uses a 18 inch or longer barrel and a carbine pattern that uses a less the 18 inch barrel.
By this definition SIG spear is an assault rifle
I think it is determined by effective range, or energy on target at say 300m. I wouldn't want a short barrel on a battle rifle. You should be able to engage targets at 2- 500 m. I'd rather have an 18 inch 6.5 cm over a 10 or 13 inch .308.
Not general issue 16+ barrels
I would add the SVT-40 and Gewehr 43 to the list.
Remember to add Fat Mac chambered in .950 JDJ on the list as well. That rifle counts as battle rifle because everything about it is a battle.
Thank you.
One other qualifier that I think I’d throw at the term is that it is used as an army’s default front line infantry standard issue, which would exclude specialist tools like a DMR. Another approach would be just to ask if you would use it about the same way you would use an FN FAL, which is the archetype for the group in my mind.
I’d consider the bolt actions of old as battle rifles more specifically a pre cursor battle rifle because a lot of them were used in a battle rifle role. This would be an explicit historical context situation because prior to the semi auto that is what everyone was using for such a role a shoulder fired, full power cartridge, not meant for sniping but can, standard infantry weapon
You don’t need to call them battle rifles now just that they were to fulfill effectively speaking that role
A rifle taken into battle is a battle-rifle.
so when its used to assault its an assault rifle
Rifled muskets and lever-action rifles? Neat
@@coinsterr any rifle.
@@chinesesparrows you get the drift
If you open a can with it, it's a can opener?
Those four points basically sum it up I'd only add, at least in a more modern context, for use in specialist roles.
The BAR was intended as a light machine gun. Issued with a web belt with a horizontal metal cup, the stock was socketed into the cup and the BAR fired (literally) from the hip. Theory was the BAR gunners could suppress the machine gun nests on the other side of no-man's land during a charge. Did well for a late arrival to the game.
Ian is remiss on the 'semi-auto' qualification. During and before WW2 bolt actions were indeed battle rifles, although no modern army would use them in that role because we now have semi-autos to do the same job in a better way. You can't change history and you're always wrong to try that. If you are speaking only of modern times then you really need to state that clearly to avoid misunderstandings and arguments which lead to nowhere. As to cartridges, something to consider is that a battle rifle cartridge with standard 'ball' ammunition can by intent penetrate some light armor, whereas assault rifle cartridges either do poorly here or require special AP ammunition to fulfill this role. There's also usable range differences with most standard assault cartridges running out of steam before or near 500m while battle rifle cartridges are effective far beyond that, again by intent. Of course there will always be some 'gray areas' and 'overlap', especially with cartridges like the 6.5 Creedmoor which is not in general use by any military, even if there are some general-use military cartridges with similar ballistics. One can argue this point all day long, so for me I say this criteria can't really be defined concisely, but only somewhat generally. If all you have if a flintlock muzzle loader it becomes whatever use you can put it to, but that does not change the definition of what that type of firearm ideally is.
I'm my mind, every LMG is a battle rifle, but not every battle rifle is an LMG
M1919. Lewis gun. The potato digger. MG19. MG34.
I wouldn't call a belt fed lmg a battle rifle
That makes no sense and is useless. With regards to "full power" weapons in chamberings like 7.62 NATO and 30-06: If it's an individual weapon (designed to be successfully operated by ONE person), and it's meant to be used primarily on full auto, it's an automatic rifle. (Ian does not know this for bewilderingly mysterious reasons). If it's meant to be used primarily on semiauto with the capability of full auto, or without the capability of full auto, it's a battle rifle. If it's a crew served, automatic only or primary weapon, it's a Machinegun of whatever flavor. GPMG, MMG, or LMG depending on historical era, and characteristics like weight. LMGs are actually kind of a narrow selection of weapons if you actually narrow them into a useful term as opposed to being literally any weapon meets the ATF's definition of a machinegun. Basically, M249 and MG4 and weapons like those. They're kinda bad and often misused.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 genuine question for rhat then, what's the BAR fall under for you?
@@matthewbrooks8512 It's an Automatic Rifle. Like an RPK, M27, L86, QBU-191, M16A1 with a bipod in Vietnam (yes they really did that and yes it was as awful as it sounds), Colt LSW, M15 (the M14 variant that was supposed to be specifically replacing the BAR but didn't get fielded), and a bunch of other weapons. Automatic rifles don't have to be full power the way battle rifles do, but full power individual weapons like these are most definitely automatic rifles when they're intended to be used primarily on full auto. A semiauto only BAR wouldn't get fielded, but if it did, it'd be a battle rifle.
I'd love to just sit down and talk to Ian for a while. A conversation like this would do me much good.
For DMRs I typically saw them as a subcategory of battle rifle. They have to have all the mainstays of a battle rifle but with higher accuracy requirements, and magnification. Circa 2018 I started to see more SPR style rifles with 77gr OTMs or even standard green tips being issued to Designated Marksmen. At first it kind of bothered me to call a 16" 5.56 a DMR but I also appreciated having one in my squad. Over time I slowly started to open my mind and have started to go with the simple test of: if it can reasonable be issued to a designated marksman with the goal of increasing 1st round impacts at infantry fighting ranges, it can safely be called a DMR, even if it doesn't fit the traditional definition. I think realizing that many DMRs were designed and built in the transitional period between battle rifles and assault rifles when 7.62 NATO was still the standard round made accepting the new smaller standard round for DMRs easier.
Just an observation, but the SKS was designed by the Soviets to replace the Mosin as their main battle rifle.
I'd argue that the M1 Garand wasn't a Battle Rifle because it's not intended to be reloaded by changing the magazine.
But it did have a clip, and guns like the FN49 are also considered battle rifles
I would also like to add detachable magazine to the list of requirements
An M1 with a removable magazine is nothing other than an M14. M1 is the OG battle rifle, the "grandfather" of the pattern, just like the SKS is the red headed stepchild of the pattern. To complain an M1 is not a battle rifle because it doesn't have a removable magazine (it's clip functions in that regard) is like complaining the B52 is not a bomber because it's not driven by propellers.
@@PrinceAlhorian The way you load a gun has a profound impact on it's use. If you made a M1 Garand full auto, you'd be jamming a clip in it every 3 seconds which leaves you extremely vulnerable. Compare that to the M14 which is functionally a M1 Garand in full auto except with detachable magazines. Since the M14 has detachable magazines, reloading is less time consuming which allows you to lay down near constant fire which is something that the M1 Garand just isn't capable of doing. Since I consider the M14 a battle-rifle and since the M1 Garand can't do what a battle-rifle can do, I do not consider the M1 Garand a battle-rifle. The detachable magazine is a core component of what allows a battle-rifle to do what it does. Now, the main reason we have to debate what is or isn't a battle-rifle is because what the function of a battle-rifle or usage of a battle-rifle is not clearly defined. For instance, what separates a battle-rifle from an assault rifle other than it's cartridge (if we exclude weapons like the M1 Garand from the battle-rifle category)? Because, at least in my eyes, a battle-rifle is just an assault rifle with a larger cartridge.
@@BasedBebs wasn't the full auto function on the M14 removed in like basically no time at all because it wasn't practical?
I recall a conversation (very likely much of it exaggerated) between an uncle of mine now sadly deceased who was in the 'Skins' (Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers) as a regular soldier in the late 40s and early 50s and a cousin who was in the Royal Marines at a time when they were transitioning from the L1A1 (Imperial FAL) to the much maligned L85. The uncle mentioned that his unit had been involved in testing the early prototype 'wood' L1A1s and said that it was almost useless as an automatic weapon as due to the recoil only the first shot of a burst would be on target and most troops while excellent shots with the weapon could not handle it on 'fun mode'.
Touched by Ian adds $$$ to the BAR's value.
OMG! Everyone has to go off on tangents, and want to bring up exceptions or introduce THEIR favorite! I think Ian has a pretty good "definition" of a battle rifle here. Myself, going in again, I'll take an 18 inch barrel M14 with the full auto switch!
Yooo my question got answered! Thanks Ian!
I agree with your definitions between “battle” and “assault” rifles. There will be guns that don’t quite fit either category and some that will straddle the line differentiating the two. To be honest one of the dumb qualifiers I use is this; if I’d want it to fire over open distances it’s probably a battle rifle, but if I’m fighting in a close quarter environ, say dense foliage or urban setting, its an assault rifle.
I think the argument between which type of rifle will win out going into the future will depend on developments in body armor. If body armor becomes advanced enough that it can effectively stop intermediate cartridges and is cheap enough to be fielded by everyone (or nearly everyone), both national militaries and non-state actors, I could see the door being opened for a discussion about bringing back battle rifles. Whether or not they actually go through that door is an whole other conversation...
Battle rifles are the most elegant of rifles
Before any other person brings up video games, the Guns Magazine Dec 1999 edition features an article by Charles Karwan entitled “Military Guns of the Century.” Which predates Halo 2. “Post-World War II production of refined semiautomatic battle rifles led to the Belgian FN SAFN M1949, the French MAS 49 and 49/56, the Belgian FN FAL, the Swiss SIG 510 series, the U.S. M14, the Italian Beretta BM59 and the German G-3. All were and are quite excellent. While some of these were available with a selective fire capability, they were largely ineffective in the full automatic role because the power of their cartridges made them uncontrollable. Consequently they were used almost universally as semiautomatic rifles.” “The successor to the battle rifle is the assault rifle.”
In terms of a cartridge category perhaps the best way to classify that would either be the action system (greater than micro-action) or perhaps the effective range (greater than 600y)
BAR is beautiful and it is a "Battle Rifle" as it is semi-auto only. Great BAR!
I wouldn't consider a DMR a BR, because they are intended to be fired from a braced or bipoded position similar to a MG. so my criteria would be: -Full length Cartridge with a detachable magazine -Does not require any more training than an assault rifle, and can be used as a standard issue rifle
Amazing video!!! I love our old Battle Rifle, CETME C, we call it “chopo”, awesome gun
I know Ian did a lot of work for this video, but Upotte!! answered this ~16 years ago. FAL (secretly L1A1), M14, G3, and Type 64 are the battle rifles. no do not ask questions, direct them towards Kitsune Tennouji.
Honestly, Upotte!! explains it far better than this video. Full-power (BR), intermediate (AR), or pistol (SMG) cartridge, full-auto, detachable mag. It's super simple. Further questions can also be directed to the show's IMFDB page (which I recently-ish redid). :D
I never tire of Ian just pulling some random obscure rifle from off frame just to make a point.
And again I’m impressed by Ian’s gun collection in which we have almost anything to show off patterns and differences. I’d love to be toured through Ian’s armory😂