Jump to content


Photo

What Is A "battle Rifle" Or "battlefield Rifle"?


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,119 posts

Posted 21 July 2019 - 1945 PM

You gotta be an Automatic Rifleman if you are going to get a M27.


  • 0

#42 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,615 posts

Posted 21 July 2019 - 2046 PM

HBAR's rule?


  • 0

#43 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,899 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 1011 AM


 


,,,Battle rifle = military purposed semiautomatic or selective fire rifle in a full sized (non intermediate) chambering.

No military used that term or definition and neither did any manufacturer.
"Battle rifle" is a "Gavin" of the rifle world.
 
What's a "Mouse Gun" then? :)

Anything up to 5" depending on the sort of mouse.
  • 0

#44 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,592 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 1112 AM

Thank you everyone for your input.  As always the varied knowledge and experience on this site never fails to impress me.  :)


  • 0

#45 BJE

BJE

    Member

  • TestGroup
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 22 July 2019 - 1628 PM

You gotta be an Automatic Rifleman if you are going to get a M27.

Nope. https://www.marineco...ot-getting-one/


  • 0

#46 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,119 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 0356 AM

That was the fig leaf for driving around the Army. Of course the decision to go with HK and proprietary lower etc. came back to bite them in the ass as the world moved on. Generally the whole procurement boondoggle shows how generally idiotic government and command structures are. That they are still buying KAC 2-piece non-float handguards, broomhandles and M4 stocks is testament to the inherent irrationality.


  • 0

#47 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,798 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 0930 AM

The USMC small arms programs are disjointed, and weird.  The M27 and M38 are OK, but it's a really long way around the mountain.  The M327 120mm mortar fielding and now retirement was/is a fucking atrocity, people should be dragged from retirement and hanged from Goettge Fieldhouse at CLNC pour encourager los autres. The LAR Bns are still living in the early 80's and still have shit for DF or IDF weaponry. 

 

Battle rifles is a make believe term for the incipient Alzheimer geezers who still want to bring back the fucking M14.   I guarandamntee I have fired more rounds from an M14 than any of these asshats,(three barrels worth now), and I will state all week long and twice on Sunday that the M14 was retired at the right time and should stay that way forever.  The tooling, rifles and all the gear should have never been exported, and all US .mil rifles should be surplussed and sold to actual Americans via the CMP, and the taxpayers sorta recover some money.  Yes, that means repealing the NFA.  So what, get it done.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#48 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,323 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 1613 PM

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.
  • 0

#49 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 1637 PM

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

 

I'll fetch the popcorn. This is going to be great... :)


  • 0

#50 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,415 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 1640 PM

The M14 is very hard to accurize to sniper accuracy, then to maintain it there.  For example, you can't remove it from its custom-bedded stock for cleaning.  OK for the range, but not practical in a line unit.

It was a pretty good iron-sighted 3-4 MOA infantry rifle in its day, though arguably inferior to the FAL and G3 variants.  The M21 was an Army venture during the Vietnam era, where rapid fire was valued over pure accuracy--perhaps influenced by the Druganov.  The Marine Corps, OTOH, valued accuracy above all and stayed with bolt rifles until fairly recently (E5M?).

----

I was issued an M14 in 1975, when it was still the official standard rifle of the USMC.  The M16A1 was the 'substitute' standard, even though it was the rifle actually carried by combat Marines.  The M16's teething problems were still fresh on Marines' minds, and the M14 was still venerated as a general use infantry rifle.  In fact, during the Desert Shield buildup, I read an article that stated the Marines were considering reissuing M14s to troops heading for Saudi.


Edited by shep854, 23 July 2019 - 1644 PM.

  • 0

#51 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,415 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 1657 PM

Regarding the M27, at 1:52 in this video, there's a good discussion about the IAR between a former Marine and a retired Soldier, both infantry.  If you want to hear about 4 hours of nerding out about guns, watch the whole thing.  NOTE: The first 30 minutes or so is dead air and chatter.


Edited by shep854, 23 July 2019 - 1658 PM.

  • 0

#52 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,119 posts

Posted 23 July 2019 - 2146 PM

Why keep junk? To get a M14 to anything like commercial AR10-a like will cost more and it will be still be way behind the curve. Gats are consumables. Run them till they don't meet your needs then sell em off as parts kits. Torch the receiver. The rest goes out as genuine .mil surplus for fanbois. Being beat to hell is 'patina'. Need stuff? Go to Brownells or something like every other right minded person with unit credit card and authorized shopping list.


  • 0

#53 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,798 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 0811 AM

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

You can read all the times we've hashed this out, over and over and over again.  Mounting optics sucks, it's fragile, the manual of arms and everything about it is different than the AR family.  Basically any person with a triple digit IQ trained on the M16 series can easily figure out the AR 10/SR25 without much, if any, further training.  

 

And you can sell them to aging boomers for insaner amounts of cash money and use said money to buy more useful things.  Now, before all the suckers, err, boomers are dead and buried.  S/F....Ken M 


  • 0

#54 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 1732 PM

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.

 

That was actually a very mild anti M14 rant by E5M standards :)  This video is pretty good.


  • 0

#55 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,434 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 1851 PM

What's wrong with the M14 serving in a limited role as it has been since it was phased out of general usage? Seems to get the job done as a DMR and other tasks. A lot nicer looking for ceremonial duties than an M4 too.


The M14 cannot serve this purpose. It has malfunctions often, is finicky, hard to repair and maintain, inaccurate. It does not get the job done. Maybe for EOD removal, because the regular malfunctions do not matter much, when the IED does not shoot back. It is also hard to mount optics. Not only a scope, but night vision or thermals, a laser, a torch. Really it is a bad rifle, that inexplicably has a cult following. As general issue rifles the FN FAL, CETME B, G3, BM-59 and the SWD, PSL are all better choices. (Yes I know the latter are designed as a DMR)
choices. Heck, just read in a forum of M1A owners, what they have to do to get decent accuracy and consistency out of their rifles. File here, bed there, buy this overpriced tuning part, send it to an expensive gunsmith...


For ceremonial duties old M1903 and M1 rifles are enough. Still millions around. Sure for just swinging around an M14 is probably fine too.


  • 0

#56 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 1914 PM

How is the BM59 better than the M14 (I know there are different flavours of BM59, but still....) ?


  • 0

#57 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,323 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 1920 PM

By all means I agree the AR-10 is a superior design and if you're buying new 7.62mm rifles you ought to go with one of the derivatives of it. Yet the bean-counters get their say and when there are hundreds of thousands of M14s in storage what do you expect is going to happen when someone asks for semi-automatic 7.62mm rifles?

 

Difficulties aside accurized M14s did serve that purpose as the XM21 and M21 so clearly it could be made to work. When looking at it as a general service rifle I'm a bit doubtful that there is any difference in accuracy between the M14 and the other 7.62mm NATO rifles of the day. I've never heard the FN FAL or G3 were exceptionally accurate either minus those hand-picked G3s converted for marksman purposes. Speaking of the FAL were there any conversions of that rifle for marksman work?

 

Was/is the M14 outdated? Yes. But bad? Well I imagine a lot of GIs would have loved to have the M14 back in 1944.


  • 0

#58 GregShaw

GregShaw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 24 July 2019 - 2040 PM

What are you regarding as inaccurate? The guys talking about tuning and bedding for accuracy are striving for MOA, that's a lot higher than a battle rifle requires, a stock M14 will probably shoot 3 MOA or so, which will clean an SR or SR-1 (roughly 3 MOA 10 ring, 6 MOA 9, etc...) I doubt a stock CETME, FAL, BM-59, etc are going to do any better.

 

I'm not an expert on M14, I burn a lot more ammo through my Garand's than I do my M14. I've only put 1k or so through mine (without a ftf or jam, not a claim I can make for my ARs), which is far less than E5M. I do agree with E5M, optics are a pain, and I would rather carry my A2 or A4 with 77 gr BTHP and 24 gr RL-15, Varget, H4895, etc... for shooting out to 600 yds or so. There are definitely better guns around for the DMR role, but I don't think any of its '50s contemporaries are significantly better.


Edited by GregShaw, 24 July 2019 - 2041 PM.

  • 0

#59 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,741 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 0122 AM

The G3 had about 4 MOA as QC requirement, but the G3s that I encountered in service were vastly better than 4 MOA.

It's been a long time, but I suppose 2 MOA was probably normal.


  • 0

#60 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,676 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 0606 AM

How is the BM59 better than the M14 (I know there are different flavours of BM59, but still....) ?

It was a hell lot cheaper to introduce.

 

From our tests:

Could stand rapid fire marginally better (probably irrelevant, considering ammo load was 100 rounds).

Somewhat shorter.

Less susceptible to the stoppages due the fouling by fine dust. Both failed sand and mud tests and both passed low temperature test.

 

In the end BM-59, M14 and M59/61 (full auto capable SKS using AK mags) were ditched as "obsolete concept" compared with other competitors (AR-10, AK, vz.59, G3, FAL) and tests proceed w/o them.


  • 0