Thread 64097897

As we all know, the term "Assault Rifle" was directly lifted from the German word "Sturmgewehr", however I want to know who, when and where was the term "Battle Rifle" developed. It certainly wasn't during the inception of the FAL as it's name literally translates to Light Automatic Rifle, putting it in the same category as the Browning Automatic Rifle, and Austria adopted it as the Sturmgewehr 58. Picrel is from the Grand Curtius Museum's reference book, a large arms museum in Liege which is literally right down the road from Herstal where the FAL was made (what I'm saying is I'm not gonna be the one to call them wrong). Was it simply an ex post facto categorization to differentiate between the 7.62x51 caliber infantry rifles and the later 5.56 ones or is there some interesting story to how the select fire, detachable box magazine FAL ended up in the same category as the semiautomatic only, fixed magazine M1 Garand?

>>64097897 (OP)
However to be more even handed the book Small Arms Visual Encyclopedia very strictly calls the FAL a battle rifle in no uncertain terms. However call me a doubter in this book's accuracy since it uses the British spelling of caliber. Also take a look at this fucking shit, can you tell me what's wrong with this picture?

>>64097897 (OP)
Completely unrelated tangent but I tore through Hatcher's Notebook trying to find any use of the term "Battle Rifle". It only refers to the class of guns as "autoloading rifles" or "semiautomatic rifles" (assumedly because he sees them as a scaled back version of an automatic rifle). This has nothing to do with anything but I'd like to point out that even back then people were confused about the StG-44 and would call it an SMG or a Carbine, I just think that's neat. I'd like to imagine there was a room of the Ordnance Board's top men just completely befuddled by the gun laid before them on the table, furiously arguing back and forth on how it's a SMG or a Carbine until one bright crayon decided to ask a German what they called it

>>64097897 (OP)
the term battle rifle doesn't come about until after the adoption of the M16, possibly not until the adoption of the ak74 and various nato 5.56 guns as a way to differentiate and classify the the WWII and Cold War era rifles that were semi auto but used the same caliber as the previous bolt action rifles.
it's like how the term PDW keeps changing retroactively only after a product is made that people are trying to sell
ie, the M1 carbine is obviously a PDW because it was designed as a personal defense weapon for like truck drivers
then PDW meant the entire class of post post WWII SMGs designed based on that late 1980s NATO requirement of having to shoot pistol round that could penetrate russian body armor, but again doctrinally similar to the M1 carbine in that it was designed for like truck drivers
and now it means a stocked pistol designed for sale to private individuals who think the happening is going to happen on their way to or from work

>>64097940
>>64097897 (OP)
actually wait, to expand on this, I bet the term "battle rifle" only started to get used after the M16 was adopted AND you could buy like PTRs and M1As on the US market as a marketing term

>>64097897 (OP)
I'm losing my fucking mind over here. Does this mean Browning invented the assault rifle or is the only thing that separates an automatic rifle from an assault rifle is the presence of rails? I opened a can of worms and I severely regret all the decisions that have brought me to this point
>>64097940
>>64097944
Interesting theory, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how the term proliferated. It just sounds like a phrase you'd read in a Soldier of Fortune magazine and was co-opted by gun makers and sellers to make their old guns sound cooler or stronger

>>64097982
>I'm losing my fucking mind over here. Does this mean Browning invented the assault rifle o
a. it's just a stupid word
b. it would be an automatic rifle not an assault rifle. assault rifles are specifically in calibers smaller than those adopted for WWI.

>>64097897 (OP)
In several languages a FAL/G3/M16 are assault rifles or automatic rifles all the same

>>64097897 (OP)
I dont know of an exact date or example, but maybe late 80s-early 90s. Its true that for most of the time "battle rifles" were relevant, they were just called assault rifles and calibre was not a significant distinction; and even then the term was only really used in academic circles (which is to say, boomer forums and faggot nerd anime websites) until maybe the early 2010s.

>>64097944
I dont think it was a marketing term, its just a useful shorthand to make a distinction between intermediate calibre assault rifles and full rifle calibre assault rifles; especially in the last 25 years where rifle calibre assault rifles have adopted a slightly different role as DMRs.

>>64098054
>calibre
GMS!!!!!

>>64098054
According to GPT it couldn't find an earliest publication of the term "battle rifle" and suggests the term is grassroots instead of being a marketing term that was adopted into regular terminology. However its timeline is all over the place, saying it evolved sometime between the 50s and 70s before really gaining ground in the 80s. Perhaps we'll never truly know who was the first to make the distinction
>Captcha: JAK RN
don't mind if I do

>>64097940
This timing makes sense, there wasn't any need to classify the M14/FAL/G3 until something came out that was sufficiently different. While automatic rifle had worked fine up until then, since assault rifles are also technically automatic rifles too it wouldn't make sense to lump them under the same umbrella term so now a new term was needed to differentiate them

Battle rifle is just another case of anglo terminology and categorization autism, like with "what is a tank".

>>64098185
or what's a saber
>>64098130
It's an 80s thing. I'm almost sure it was popularized after the mass adoption of high velocity small caliber rifles

>>64098177
Especially since if we had kept using "automatic rifle" we'd have everything from the BAR to the Honey Badger in the same category of firearm, it'd be really confusing. Frankly even for the time having the FAL share a label with the BAR is pretty confusing considering the two are doctrinally radically different weapons, unless we're talking about the L2A1 but that's an outlier. Still, personally I have no issue lumping the FAL and the M16 together as assault rifles because they're both used like assault rifles, for me the distinction exists not in what it is but how its used. The problem I have is the M1 Garand and the FAL being in the same category since all they share in common use wise is that they're general issue infantry rifles. I know it'd be extra autistic to create a subcategory of a subcategory to describe fixed mag battle rifles verus detachable box mag rifles but the current state of affairs just doesn't sit right with me

>>64098211
Automatic Rifle
Light Automatic Rifle
Not so hard to tell the difference.

>>64098211
>lumping the FAL and the M16 together as assault rifles because they're both used like assault rifles
The performance under fully automatic fire is different enough that they warrant a different term. Just because they were intended to be used in the same way doesn't mean they don't have a practical difference that matters. If you was about to do some jungle action in the 70s and you wanted an M16 and someone handed you a FAL instead you wouldn't be very happy.

>>64098295
>If you was about to do some jungle action in the 70s and you wanted an M16 and someone handed you a FAL instead you wouldn't be very happy.
The Aussies loved theirs in Vietnam though

>>64098400
OK, but if you wanted an M16? The point is that the difference is enough to matter, so it deserves a different term to distinguish between the two.

>>64097921
From the 1940s to the 1960s, intermediary calliber full auto rifles would often be referred to as SMGs even in official military designation.

>>64099060
I'm aware, I just find it neat how much of a wild west naming conventions were back then

>>64101662
Probably(?) not the first mention, but stuck in my head because the guy claiming that Battle Rifle was not an actual definition was such an childish asshole.

>>64097897 (OP)
Chuck Taylor coined the term in articles for SWAT, Soldier of Fortune and similar magazines sometime in the early 80s.

>>64097897 (OP)
I remember the super-submachinegun, and welcome further punitive expeditions of /k/ into /lit/ territory.

>>64101749
Define "sandwich"

>>64104253
Delicious

>>64097897 (OP)
>>64101685
>Chuck Taylor magazines early 80s
Probably this.
It was never in any of the official/academic published book references such as Jane's back then, nor was it in military manuals.
And it never came into wider-popular use in the firearm world (apart from the select readership of SOF, which was much smaller and niche-focused than, say for example, Guns & Ammo magazine) until the post-internet 2010s.

As discussed upthread, throughout the Cold War era select fire rifles were Automatic Rifles

>>64101664
>>64101664
Of note, the US won the most medals in wrestling that year; 13 total, including 9 gold. The runner up, Japan won 9 with only 2 golds. TBF; the Soviet Union boycotted.
It was Bruce Baumgartner's first Olympic gold and anyone who has wrestled seriously knows his name.

>>64097944
>I bet
checked, the military its training and manuals never made the distinction (until the 2010s by which post-internet time it had become a gamer obsession, put onto Wiki)
None of the Cold War era official military manuals made such distinctions, as posted above the "battle" term was coined by a lesser-known and -circulated U.S. magazine author. Never was it an official or doctrinal distinction

>>64105442
Is a hot dog a sandwich?
A pop-tart?
>>64106502
Yes, but now automatic rifle means BAR, or M27 in squad support role. People forget that definitions change with date and usage.

>>64106511
Checked. But they had the Colt LMG vs the M16, or M14 vs the T series that I forget. M14E2?

>>64097909
>'Small Arms Visual Encyclopedia'
that's a very generic non-authoritative compendium book published year 2011.
Absolutely not the type of reference to bother with at all.

Look, for example at published books by Edward Ezell or Ian V. Hogg particularly from the 1970s and 80s (including updated editions of their work into the 90s)
Perhaps the best most authoritative (apart from Jane's) more recent published book work on select fire rifles is Popenker and Williams 'Assault Rifle' (The Crowood Press, 2004)
From its opening Chapter One, on page 9
>DEFINITIONS
>The term 'assault rifle' is in common use to describe modern military rifles. However, there is no officially agreed definition of the term, so this book must necessarily commence by defining its subject.

>>64106516
>>64106529
>date
as mentioned, since *after the 2010s* the arbitrary distinction between 'full power' and 'intermediate' chambering *has become far more common* and accepted because of the internet, online gaming etc. then those distinctions and terms may ?? have become more common or even ?? adopted officially by U.S. mil procurement. You'd have to provide the proof with more recent-published mil manuals for those firearms
so you may ?? find newer-printing U.S. Army/USMC military manuals, say ones that have been published after 2015 or so, which are in the title of these manuals referring to (an M14 as) "battle" rifle or (an M16 / M4) as "assault" I doubt it though, most of the even recent post-2010 manuals are just titled 'AUTOMATIC RIFLE' or similar.

>>64101664
The "battle rifle is not real/the battle rifle is an assault rifle" guy is a schizo, he has a distinct posting style and set of various related beliefs that he'll shoehorn into any remotely related conversation regardless of context or relevance. He's actually coherent and capable of posting normally, but it can be a real pain when he's involved because unless you know of all of his "bullet points" (haha) beforehand, it's just incomprehensible schizo-babble. OP is either him or someone who was inspired by one of his talking points.

>>64106548
>hurr durr "he has a distinct posting style," "muh talking points"
Fuck off faggot.
Is that like identifying the difference between a 'battle' rifle and 'assault' rifle?
*KILL (You)RSELF*.

>>64106516
Yes and no. Poptarts are not sandwiches because the filling is entirely enclosed. Also hot pockets and other stuffed sandwiches are also not true sandwiches since it's 1 solid piece of bread that has been hollowed out. Sandwiches need 2 distinct slices or halves of bread and exposed contents from at least one side. In other words you should, even if the buns are conjoined, be able to lay it open like a book. Tacos are not sandwiches either because despite soft tortillas being able to be laid flat, when consumed the filling is totally enclosed and hard tortillas being unable to lay flat

Show the United States military manual, published during 2010s or later, from any select fire rifle used by Navy/Army/Marines/Coast Guard, for which the title of that firearm manual is called
>BATTLE RIFLE (or RIFLE, BATTLE)
>ASSAULT RIFLE (or RIFLE, ASSAULT)

>>64106538
You are correct, it's scantily better than skimming the relevant wikipedia article. However the book is immensely nostalgic to me, so I'm including it. Also because I don't have many firearms books, I really should expand my reference collection

>>64106575
>immensely nostalgic
Sure anon I absolutely get it and I have some of those Amber Books (publisher) titles as well.
Just don't rely on books such as that as authoritative.

(since you brought it up) For a small arms general reference library, a lot of the older Jane's references can be found in the smaller Pocket Books series (broken down into Rifles, Submachine Guns etc. separate volumes) instead of seeking out the more costly full-size annual Jane's Infantry Weapons tomes.
the Popenker/Williams books by Crowood Press are highly useful and authoritative, any book or article by Anthony Williams is gold.
As mentioned, get every Ian V. Hogg book from any era that you can get your hands on. Also, the Edward Clinton Ezell books, there was a series of Small Arms of the World books published every 5 years or so that are excellent encyclopedias complete with field strip pics and diagrams for mil guns worldwide.

(further than that, you get into the Ian McCollum/specialist collector type books that concentrate on highly specific makes and brands of vintage mil weapons)

>>64106558
What a weirdly specific set of conditions. What are you not telling us?

>>64106587
??
wtf does that even mean

Find a U.S. military rifle manual, that refers to or titles itself
>BATTLE
>ASSAULT
Bring it back here, post the cover/title page pic or full document

>>64106598
OK schizo.

>>64106600
>'muh schizo'
checked, are (You) going to do it or not

>>64106603
You've constructed a sentence full of built-in caveats so that you don't have to ever admit battle rifles and assault rifles are a thing so I'm just not going to play your stupid game.

>>64097940
The meaning of words tend to drift somewhat in the context of other, similar things and changes in concepts, with the PDW example, when the M1 carbine was first developed it was pretty unique, so the term carbine was used due to some similarity with pistol caliber carbines, then when the light and fast caliber nato PDWs coined the term PDW, people retroactively applied it to the M1 carbine due to its intended role.

I consider the M1 carbine to be an intermediate caliber rifle like the AR-15, and therefore the M2 carbine to be an assault rifle

Once civilians got into PDWs the need to be concealable caused the term to shift in meaning to "stocked pistol", so if this meaning solidifies you'll probably see the p90 be classified as just an SMG, and stocked mauser C96s and Hi Powers as early PDWs

>>64106613
??
Are (You) off of (You)r meds or something? wtf does this even mean, Schizo
We are attempting to determine whether any of the past decade-or-so U.S. military official firearm maintenance manuals refer to either M14 / M16 / M4, as the title of the manual itself, by the name "battle" or "assault".
Find them and post them here

>>64106619
Do you have actual autism?
>NOOOOO word's meanings can't just shift over time, and new terms can't be coined!
>everything has to be black and white and rigidly defined, but not in a way I don't like!

>>64104253
You can supply the definition of "sandwich" by the British Army as a starting point.
>>64106556
Interesting points raised here.

>>64106616
>Once civilians got into PDWs the need to be concealable
hmhm something something MP5k

>>64107601
And the later Mod 2 manual

>>64106812
Shut the fuck up, brainlet
back to plebbit with (You)

>>64107601
>>64107638
Yep introduced 2002 (and the later Mod 2 2013)
I vaguely recall it
the acronym 'EBR' is analogous to the similar designation 'EMR' (Enhanced Marksman Rifle) that arrived a few years later also M14-derived

>>64106616
pdw has always just been a marketing term like battle rifle

>>64107638
Good job, now in future threads the schizo is going to update his comedy routine to being after 2014, just watch.