Category talk:Battle Rifle

What role does the cartridge play in this category?

I thought that a battle rifle was defined by not using a pistol or intermediate cartridge. Right now, the most common "full-size rifle" cartridge is 7.62x51mm NATO. In World War 1 and 2, they were the .303 British, the .30-06 for the Americans, the 8x57mm Mauser for the Germans, and the 7.62x54mmR for the Russians. Unless those old rifles for those calibers were made for sniper usage, wouldn't they be battle rifles?

I'm not sure about automatically including rifles that happen to be standard issue for a National Army under the term "Battle Rifle," because that then means it's no different from the term "service weapon." If the term Battle Rifle were dependent on the firearm's caliber, then the term would be more specific and have more meaning. Under this, the M4 Carbine is just the service weapon of the US Army, but is still an assault rifle (or assault carbine) thanks to its cartridge, for instance.

There's also the problem of differentiating Battle Rifles from WWII and earlier from more modern examples, since their characteristics have changed a lot. Wouldn't it be easier to create separate sub-categories for "Pre-Modern Battle Rifles" to denote those used in WWII and earlier, while "Modern Battle Rifle" would be for those used later (such as the G3, FN FAL, etc.). A working definition for a modern battle rifle would be the need for select-fire capability, and chambering in 7.62x51mm NATO or similar full-sized rifle cartridge (a rifle manufactured in modern times using a full-sized rifle cartridge that is semiautomatic-only or bolt action are usually Designated Marksmen or Sniper Rifles). A pre-modern battle rifle would not have this select-fire capability, but would still be chambered in one of the older full-sized rifle cartridges. --Mazryonh 18:41, 22 July 2011 (CDT)

I concur for the most part, and the 'modern' and 'pre-modern' distinctions might be a good idea. As for it being used to denote a country's adoption, I agree wholeheartedly - Indeed I thought the generally-accepted definition of 'Battle Rifle' were simply rifles (post-smokeless powder or least cartridge rifles) that fired full-sized rifle cartridges (Generally military adopted calibers though), and not shorty or intermediate rifle cartridges, with little to no regard to age, actual military adoption or select-fire capability, though I will contend they mostly consist of semi-auto or select-fire .30 caliber or larger full-length rifles.

I like your distinctions, but I must note there are some semiauto rifles that are clearly not sniper/marksmen weapons (Garand and FN 1949 come to mind, but there's also the HK91 and other semiauto variants and such), and besides, 'Sniper Rifle' can always be added as a subcategory in addition. Anyway, it might be better to denote a 'bolt-action rifle' subcategory for the non self-load rifles (adding it with 'Battle Rifle'), that would take care of the 'older' weapons and sub-categorize numerous other bolt rifles also, while keeping it seperate from the 'Sniper' subcategory.

As for certain weapons being under this category, most seem alright to me anyway, though I have changed a couple of pages, (The AR-18 is certainly not a battle rifle, or at least it can't be both it and an 'assault rifle'). I haven't edited any other stuff but that said, I'd ask to exclude things like the Charleville Musket and other muzzle-load firearms as well (Especially at least the Charleville - It can't be called a battle rifle if isn't even a 'rifle' to begin with.) StanTheMan 19:14, 22 July 2011 (CDT)

I have been considering making "bolt-action" and "pump-action" categories for a while, but wasn't sure if that would be well-recieved or not. Let me know what you guys think. Orca1 9904 15:01, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

Good luck with that. The mods are definitely of "lumper" variety when it comes to the "lumper vs splitter" debate; in other words they prefer to streamline the categories by consolidating them rather than creating new categories. And if you make categories for "pump-action" and "bolt-action," where does that leave "lever-action" then? Or would it be easier to make a super-category called "manually-operated firearms" to encompass all of those sub-categories? But then, you'd run into interesting problems such as having to include single-action-only revolvers or even the first Gatling gun . . . --Mazryonh 15:32, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

I included the M1 Garand (and by extension the Gewehr 43 and SVT-40) in the hypothetical "Pre-Modern Battle Rifle" category because the Garand is not select-fire capable. And wasn't the HK91 a "sporting" version of the G3 Battle Rifle? I would also agree that muskets and other antique firearms should definitely get their own category later on, but first I'd like to see if I can drum up more support for splitting the Battle Rifle category to reduce confusion. --Mazryonh 22:10, 22 July 2011 (CDT)

I think the hypothetical pre-modern battle rifle would be the FG42, really. IIRC the term is Vietnam-era and was used to distinguish the "battle" rifle (the M14) from the new "assault" rifle (the M16). I think it's best to limit the definition to weapons which are essentially assault rifles firing rifle rounds which were regarded as standard infantry weapons rather than light machine guns. I think "service rifle" is a better general category for pre-modern examples other than the aforementioned FG42. Evil Tim 02:18, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

Regardless of the "vintage" of the Battle Rifle term, I still believe the term (when referring to rifles that fire full-size rifle cartridges) has more meaning than just a synonym of "service rifle/carbine/weapon." Actually, I believe that in a sense, the FG42 is probably the first "modern battle rifle" since it was select fire, fired the 8x57mm Mauser, was magazine-fed (instead of belt-fed like its progenitor), no longer than a K98, and with a bipod and scope (the last two being features that modern users take for granted). Of course, does this mean that the similar Browning Automatic Rifle which was also magazine-fed, select-fire, and had a bipod is a "modern battle rifle" too? Probably not since it was used as a magazine-fed LMG and was likely larger than the M1 Garand. "Service Rifle" is just too broad a term in my view, so "Pre-Modern Battle Rifle" is a good way to differentiate between the older WWI/WWII weapons that were not select-fire, not LMGs, and fired full-sized rifle cartridges from more modern entries such as the FG42, G3, FN FAL, etc. --Mazryonh 14:47, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

I included the M1 Garand (and by extension the Gewehr 43 and SVT-40) in the hypothetical "Pre-Modern Battle Rifle" category because the Garand is not select-fire capable. And wasn't the HK91 a "sporting" version of the G3 Battle Rifle? I would also agree that muskets and other antique firearms should definitely get their own category later on, but first I'd like to see if I can drum up more support for splitting the Battle Rifle category to reduce confusion. --Mazryonh

Well, you should add MAS-49 and the FN 1949 if you're making select-fire the main distinction for pre-modern and modern, but yes, that sounds ok to me for the most part. I still agree completely with your desire to note that 'battle rifle' is not simply synonymous with 'service weapon'. However, your suggestion, good as it is, still doesn't solve the problem of most of their immediate bolt-action predecessors, many of which are considered 'battle rifles' (admittedly mainly because of their adopted military service), though more 'pre-modern' as you put it, and even if we don't consider them as such, I feel an extra subcategory will help their classification on this site which is why I put up the possibility of a 'bolt-action' subcategory - not just to take care of those weapons (without regard as to whether they are or aren't considered 'battle rifles' as you may put it) but also to help mark many others on the site (the hunting/sporting bolt-actions, bolt sniper rifles, etc). Of course there are other considerations - I feel my suggestion may be simpler while yours may open up a multitude of other sub-sub-categories like marking pistols as SA or DA, or automatic and pump shotguns, etc. not your intention but it is to be considered. Of course just my thoughts. I still like your suggestions, and would be in support of them at least for the time being. StanTheMan 16:13, 23 July 2011 (CDT)

Sorry guys, I totally disagree with the direction this page ended up going

A main battle rifle has always traditionally been the Main Long Gun that is THE dominant issued weapon for the INFANTRY of a major army. Since Assault rifles created a new category, they pretty much ended the era of the "Main Battle Rifle". Inclusion of MANY of these weapons is ridiculous. For example, The FG-42 was made in such few numbers that it never achieved anything close to the 'dominant' long gun issued to a country's armed forces. Even amongst the fallschirmjäger, for which the FG-42 was designed, there were more MP40s and Beretta MP38As than the FG-42. The term Main Battle Rifle was coined in the 1960s, primarily to differentiate NON-select fire full sized cartridge rifles from the emerging intermediate cartridge select fire weapons we now call assault rifles. One should NOT over think the issue. Keep the definition true to what it was when it was coined. MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice of you to finally chime in, MPM. The problem with what you propose is, once again, that the label is then too broad. What's to stop the term "battle rifle" as you defined it from being extended to every long gun defined as "standard-issue" for a national military force? Many of these older standard-issue long guns, such as the muskets in this category, aren't even rifles because they don't have rifled barrels! And what about firearms like the Kel-Tec RFB, which hasn't been adopted as standard-issue by any national military force? What about the assault rifle label? Does that become useless for those that have been adopted in the way I described earlier? --Mazryonh (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (EDT)