1911Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
I'll just repeat what I've heard elsewhere:

Battle Rifle: heavier, larger caliber, excellent long-range fixed sights, moderate magazine capacity . M1 Garand, M14/Springfield M1A, FAL, Mauser 98 come to mind. Used to defeat troops at mid to long distances, i.e. 200 yards plus.

Assault rifle: lighter and more compact, smaller caliber, options for mounting CQB optics?, high capacity magazine. AK-47, M16/AR15, HK94, Uzi, etc. come to mind. Used to defeat troops in close quarters, i.e. house-to-house, urban terrain.

And then there's the sniper rifle. Bolt action, long barrel, typically .308, optics, Ghillie suit, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
Assualt rifle is a termed made up by the media. The U.S. Military has NEVER had a man portable weapons system that it reffered to as an assualt rifle.

Battle rifle is the proper term applied to the standard issue wepons of our military. ie. M16A2 Battle Rifle, is the proper nomenclature for that particular weapon.

Also, as far as standard CQB tactics go, normal units are not issued a different weapon for that specific purpose. In other words, we didn't turn in our M-16's for M-4's when we were doing MOUT (urban style, room clearing) traning.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
Assualt rifle is a termed made up by the media.
Actually, I believe the term "assault rifle" originated with the creation of the German MP-44/StG-44 during WWII. It was first labeled as a "machine pistol" (MP) but was later renamed "Sturm-Gewehr," which literally translated means "Assault-Rifle." (Supposedly, Hitler himself came up with this term.)

You're right, however. The mainstream media basically terms any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault rifle."

[This message has been edited by GI-45 (edited 10-18-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
I think there is a misconception. Battle rifle/Assault rifle. Don't they achieve the same? I believe the "Assault Rifle" could be the term now being used as a combination of medium range/high firepower weapon. Somewhere in between a submachine gun and bolt action rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Maybe I'm nuts but isn't any weapon, firearm or not, an assault weapon when used to do harm?

My point is we wouldn't consider an 03/A3 an assaualt weapon would we? In 1917 we would have because it was a rifle used to shoot at the enemy. Hell, in 1785 a Brown Bess was an "assault weapon"! There is no such animal. It's a media spun lie. Rifle, pistol, etc. are the correct terms in addressing various firearms. Who here would go to your local gun shop and ask for a Colt assault rifle or whatever? Nobody because we understand the nomenclature. The media and bitch Brady never allowed the features of an "assault weapon"(read modern rifle/pistol) to be factually debated. She succeeded in drawing a clear and distinct line in the minds of the non-gun owning publc between guns suitable for hunting and guns built for military use when in fact there is no such distinction as all styles of firearms were at one time or another a military type weapon. Pistol grips were portrayed to allow "spraying of rounds" when in fact it was to better combat and manage felt recoil. Another misnomer is "high capacity magazines". It's another BS line. When, prior to Brady, was there a differentiation between high and lo capacity? There wasn't. AR-15/M16's had no spec as mag capacity limits. M92 Berettas and Sig 226's held 15 in a as issued mag. Now there is this false pereption that these guns and others are "high capacity". As compared to what? Flintlock rifles"? Again she succeeded in the same by creating a distinction that is simply not there. Hell whats the difference between 3 ten rd mags and one 30? For anyone worth their salt it's only a few seconds. The threaded barrel thing is another. She made it seem that every criminal had a suppressor and a bayonet. Never heard of a drive-by bayoneting or a mass shooting with a silencer. And the sad part is the NRA went right along with it.


The argument is whether or not we, as citizens, have the right to be as well armed as any potential enemy, foriegn or domestic. If it can be deployed by the common infantry soldier than IMO it is included in the 2nd.

"Assault weapon", what a big POS lie!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
441 Posts
Yes, the terminology is troubling. But do a search for "battle rifle" on this board or at The Firing Line.com and you'll get numerous hits. It seems this concept has spread far and wide. I believe what we're all really talking about are the best uses and limits of various weapons and their rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
"Actually, I believe the term "assault rifle" originated with the creation of the German MP-44/StG-44 during WWII. It was first labeled as a "machine pistol" (MP) but was later renamed "Sturm-Gewehr," which literally translated means "Assault-Rifle." (Supposedly, Hitler himself came up with this term.)"

Yep. The MP-43 (Changed to MP-44 later in 1944) was the first Sturmgewehr. The nomenclature was changed from "MP" (Maschinenpistole) later again in 1944 to StG-44. It was specifically designed to match the mechanized blitz assaults, urban fighting, paratroop assaults, special units, etc etc - and hence it's characteristics, dimensions, cartridge (7.92 Kurz) and selective fire.

Hugo Schmeisser originally took part in the design of the Maschinenkarabiner (Mkb-42), which in turn led to the developement of the StG-44 later on.

I'll admit I have been guilty of this in a sense - but it was a mistake to have allowed the opposition to catch us in a sort of "lie". Which was created out of fear, after we allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive in the first place. Really, the "lie" has been more a product of fear than deliberately fielding an untruth.

That being the opposite of which should have been stated from the outset;

"Why, of course! An assault rifle is one of the more common weapons used by infantry forces, and thus a logical choice for individuals of the militia - organized and unorganized - as codified by the 2nd Amendment. What of it? Every free man has the right to defend himself (or herself), and should naturally have the means available to do it".

There is such a thing as an assault rifle - and everyone so able-bodied should have at least one.

The battle rifle on the other hand is an arm suited to open battlefields, which is pretty much absent in "modern" planning. Rifles such as the FN FAL, the M-14 etc would have been the later guns in this catagory though.

Incidently; the Germans even had a Volksturmgewehr, in several versions. One fired the 7.92x57mm rifle cartridge, was bolt-action, and a full size "gewehr", the VsG-2. The "shorty" version (VsG 1-5) was about the same dimensions as the final StG-45 - and fired the same 7.92x33mm cartridge.

The "peoples'" Sturmgewehr; a "must have" if you already have a vintage VW bug


[This message has been edited by LAK (edited 10-23-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
IIRC, the miliatary definition of "assault rifle" includes:

shoulder fired
magazine fed
semiauto AND full auto
firing an INTERMEDIATE CARTRIDGE (5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39, etc.)

A "battle rifle" generally refers to a rifle possessing the above features (possibly sans the full auto) but firing a full power cartridge. These would typically include 7.62x51, 30'06, 7.92mm x ???/8mm Mauser, etc.)
 
Joined
·
101 Posts
Originally posted by GI-45:
...but was later renamed "Sturm-Gewehr," which literally translated means "Assault-Rifle."
Sturm is German for storm. So the expression means "storm rifle," which loosely translated, indeed, means assault rifle.

Take care, fellow gunners.
Rob
 
Joined
·
101 Posts
Originally posted by Skunkabilly:
What's the difference?
A battle rifle has been made legitimate, meaning it has been adopted by a country as its primary infantry long arm. It's civilian, non-selector-lever counterpart should be well made, accurate, and trustworthy. Examples would be the M16/AR15, HK G3 (I think) (91/93), M14/M1A, FN FAL/DSA SA58.

An assault rifle, on the other hand, is generally a cheap, poorly-made ghetto blaster that is used primarily by gangs, drug dealers, and those unschooled in arms. An assault rifle, in today's money, would probably not exceed $200 or $300.

I own two battle rifles: a Colt AR15 and a DSA SA58 carbine. I own one assault rifle: an SKS.

Now the difference might be a little clearer.

Take care,
Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,904 Posts
According to the books I've read, the Mkb42 became the MP-43/44 because, while the German High Command wanted the intermediate-range rifle, Hitler forbade any such development; insisting on devoting production resources to high-power, long-range rifle/carbines such as the K-41w and K-43, FG-42, and the MP-40/41 SMGs.

When confronted with success and the overwhelming demand from the Ost Front troops, Hitler insisted that the product improvements suggested for the MP-43/44 be incorporated and the new iteration be dubbed the Stg-44. The Stg-44 went through several variants, including a sniper version (std. optics AND an IR version) and a tanker version w/a kit to enable it to be fired around corners and/or from inside an armored vehicle.

Leave it to the Russkis, who inspired and gave impetus to the genre's design by the Germans, to bring it to it's zenith with the introduction of the Kalashnikov AK-series after The Great Patriotic War.

[This message has been edited by Andy (edited 10-24-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Andy (edited 10-24-2001).]
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top