What is your MBR

[Lanceman_1]

M1A.

+1 on the M1A

 

[StantonCree]

This_River

you should plug up that hole on your boat.......or maybe this guy can help you with the hole on your boat. That way you stop losing your guns.

 

[erwos]

The problem with true battle rifles is that they tend to be heavy. I'd personally lean towards something like the RFB simply for the weight savings, not to mention the smaller size.

 

[BlueHeeler]

The problem with true battle rifles is that they tend to be heavy. I'd personally lean towards something like the RFB simply for the weight savings, not to mention the smaller size.

Exactly. Carrying a heavy battle rifle with heavy ammo is not as big of a concern if you have a base of operations and a supply chain to keep you stocked up. However if you are nomadic for a while and have to choose between carring more water or gun; weight becomes a real concern.

An M1A @ ~10lbs vs. Mini 14 at 6lbs is a concern. As for ammo, 10kg gives you 660 (33 mags) of 5.56×45mm or only 280 rounds (14 mags) of 7.62x51. 10kg of .22 is a whopping 3,000 rounds.

 

[Nemesis]

i just want to make a note on something.

do not fool yourself into getting tied up in numbers. the fact of the matter is that any good weapon is designed with a certain balance in mind, and when this is taken into consideration the dead weight of the platform is irreverent.

also to be considered when looking at the gross weight of ammo is the total effectiveness of the round(s) in question. you can do alot more with 280 rounds of 7.62 NATO than you can with 600 rounds of 5.56...quite frankly more ammo does not directly equate to more effectiveness.

 

[K31]

you should plug up that hole on your boat.......or maybe this guy can help you with the hole on your boat. That way you stop losing your guns.

I have a strict, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't show me pictures from your department Christmas party" policy.

 

[StantonCree]

I have a strict, "Don't ask, don't tell, don't show me pictures from your department Christmas party" policy.

hahahaha

 

[Forest]

i just want to make a note on something.

do not fool yourself into getting tied up in numbers. the fact of the matter is that any good weapon is designed with a certain balance in mind, and when this is taken into consideration the dead weight of the platform is irreverent.

Having humped both a M60 and a M16A1 when I was in I would disagree with that sentiment.

Again it's an easy thing to test run a day at a carbine class with a M1A run a qualification before class and after - check the scores.

Do the same with an AK or M4. I think you'll find after a day of carrying and shooting the lighter platform you will not be as tired and your scores will reflect that.

also to be considered when looking at the gross weight of ammo is the total effectiveness of the round(s) in question. you can do alot more with 280 rounds of 7.62 NATO than you can with 600 rounds of 5.56...quite frankly more ammo does not directly equate to more effectiveness.

That ones that really goes 'it depends'. If you're looking at defeating certain types of barries then yes the 7.62 NATO is going to be a better option. If your plan may involve supressive fire (maybe your working with a partner) then you're going to find the lighter intermediate rounds will have a significant advantage.

 

[Nemesis]

Having humped both a M60 and a M16A1 when I was in I would disagree with that sentiment.

Again it's an easy thing to test run a day at a carbine class with a M1A run a qualification before class and after - check the scores.

Do the same with an AK or M4. I think you'll find after a day of carrying and shooting the lighter platform you will not be as tired and your scores will reflect that.


That ones that really goes 'it depends'. If you're looking at defeating certain types of barries then yes the 7.62 NATO is going to be a better option. If your plan may involve supressive fire (maybe your working with a partner) then you're going to find the lighter intermediate rounds will have a significant advantage.

comparing a M60 to a M16A1 is a far cry from fair...their not even in the same classification.

here is the snag up with suppressive fire, most barriers that one would take cover behind can be defeated by 7.62 NATO, so of what value does laying 100 rounds over their head play when you could place 10 into the car their hiding behind?


edit: i am not saying that rounds like 5.56 do not have their place...however lets not get taken off course of what this discussion is about...a battle rifle. not a light machine gun, not an assault rifle, nor even a combat rifle...we are talking about battle rifles, do not blur the lines that separate these.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

I don't see a great love for the FAL or the M14

Sorry, I just got into the thread. Century R1A1 is the closest I have to FAL. BTW, I'm sticking with my usual plan, meeting up with the Filipino contingent. You guys always have good food, beer, and blades.

I'm sure the military tested them quite well. But these optics/rifles have been used and abused since 2004. So by the time we had them issued to us they were pretty rough. All that abuse adds up.

I don't see this one ending well.

So who is going to grab me?

Get with FPS, Scar, lx1x and head west. I'll be holding land here. Besides, they're gonna need you to translate going through WV and KY.

RattleSnake. oh wait, he already did

Sheesh...accept ONE free dinner....

 

[Forest]

comparing a M60 to a M16A1 is a far cry from fair...their not even in the same classification.

While the weight extream is up there - That tricked out M1A someone posted with the fancy stock is pretty darn close to M60 weight.

Even if you took a bone stock 10lbs M1A, that weight WILL be noticable after a day or two of carrying & using it. (again take both to a carbine class and compare).

here is the snag up with suppressive fire, most barriers that one would take cover behind can be defeated by 7.62 NATO, so of what value does laying 100 rounds over their head play when you could place 10 into the car their hiding behind?

Because most people over estimate how much cover 7.62 NATO can really defeat.

Car doors? Even 5.56 goes through without a problem.

Engine Blocks (the only true cover a car conveys) will easily stop 7.62 NATO just as it does 5.56.

7.62NATO is better at things like glass (especially safety glass) and hollow concrete blocks - when dealing with berms/sand, drums filled with water/sand, sandbags, typical concrete walls etc it's not much different than 5.56 at typical combat distances (see MCWP 3-35 pB4 to B-6 for details; the USMC manual on MOUT).

not a light machine gun, not an assault rifle, nor even a combat rifle...we are talking about battle rifles, do not blur the lines that separate these.

Potatoe/potato 'Battle Rifle' is term generated by enthusiasts to denote a subsection of weapons which lacked a Snazzy moniker (like 'Assault Rifle').

A rifle taken into battle is a "Battle Rifle" for the last 60+ years it's been the AK for Russia and for the US it's been the M16 system for the last 40+ years. If I had to pick up a rifle for 'real use' I don't care what name a hobbiest or gun rag might refer to it as, I just know the rifle I'm going to grab.

 

[Forest]

i am not saying that rounds like 5.56 do not have their place.....

If I were going to man a checkpoint or OP where vehicles were expected I would generally prefer somethign other than 5.56. Give me a 6.8 or a 7.62NATO and I'd be happy and wouldn't worry about lugging around the extra weight.

But if I'm on foot? Hands down I take the 5.56. Lighter weight means more mobility and/or more food/water/ammo (as appropriate).

 

[Kevp]

Yet another thread gone out of control. This one was bad from the start because the OP cites a rifle that is the civilian version of a light machinegun chambered in an intermediate caliber (762x39) that doesn't even qualify as what is generally accepted as the definition of a battle rifle.

I will preface this by saying that if you want to have the discussion, then you need to accept the fact that we are talking military weapons. You cannot default to "this is a discussion of civilian use of the weapon in a non-military situation" or "we are going into battle" which comes up often when those with weak arguments are trying to bolster their weak positions. The bottom line is that civilian use of military-inspired/driven kit (rifles, optics, accessories, and other gear) has exploded over the past 10 years for obvious reasons. It has spawned an avalanche of cheap imitations and the inevitable comparisons to the real thing by those that choose (by necessity or not) to buy something less. I fail to understand why folks who buy this stuff insist on trying to compare it to the real thing. This applies to everything, but especially rifles and optics. I am only saying this because this thread has this stuff "sprinkled" throughout.

Back to the point. We always end up in these debates about the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges vs. full power cartridges (usually 5.56 vs. .308). The bottom line is that the full power cartridge is not practical for general purpose use on the modern battlefield. Lots of smart people who've actually been in the fight (from Vietnam to present) have made this decision for good reason. Yet, we still have the Internet commando crowd that somehow knows better even though the majority have never been anywhere in harm's way.

The full power cartridge (.308 for this discussion) in a platform other than a crew-served weapon or sniper rifle does have a place on today's battlefield in the designated marksman role. A DM equipped with a platform in .308 bridges a gap. That gap does not apply to every rifleman. The 5.56 has gotten a bad rap IMO. It isn't the cartridge that has been less than effective, it is the projectile- M855. Our biggest problem is that we always want something, I don't care what it is, that does everything well. That is an unrealistic expectation. The key is understanding what you really need and then striking a balance with what is available.

Finally- if you don't have a pedigree in doctrine or tactics, don't try to talk it. I hope this all makes sense.

 

[Nemesis]

While the weight extream is up there - That tricked out M1A someone posted with the fancy stock is pretty darn close to M60 weight.

Even if you took a bone stock 10lbs M1A, that weight WILL be noticable after a day or two of carrying & using it. (again take both to a carbine class and compare).

Because most people over estimate how much cover 7.62 NATO can really defeat.

Car doors? Even 5.56 goes through without a problem.

Engine Blocks (the only true cover a car conveys) will easily stop 7.62 NATO just as it does 5.56.

7.62NATO is better at things like glass (especially safety glass) and hollow concrete blocks - when dealing with berms/sand, drums filled with water/sand, sandbags, typical concrete walls etc it's not much different than 5.56 at typical combat distances (see MCWP 3-35 pB4 to B-6 for details; the USMC manual on MOUT).


Potatoe/potato 'Battle Rifle' is term generated by enthusiasts to denote a subsection of weapons which lacked a Snazzy moniker (like 'Assault Rifle').

A rifle taken into battle is a "Battle Rifle" for the last 60+ years it's been the AK for Russia and for the US it's been the M16 system for the last 40+ years. If I had to pick up a rifle for 'real use' I don't care what name a hobbiest or gun rag might refer to it as, I just know the rifle I'm going to grab.

the M60 tips the scales at almost 25 pounds, the EBR tips in at 11.5 pounds...that is no where near close. it is best to check facts rather than make assumptions.


bare in mind those classes are 'carbine' classes...the best rifle beyond a military assault rifle for this role would be a combat rifle, seeing as they are essentially the same platforms just semi.

'battle rifle' is not just a token term, it is in the same regard as automobiles are classified as pick up trucks, SUVs, economy cars, sports cars, luxury cars, super cars, hyper cars, ect. just because they all are the same at their most basic level does not mean that they are all designed to operate or preform at the same level, or excel in the same area.

 

[clandestine]

Yet another thread gone out of control. This one was bad from the start because the OP cites a rifle that is the civilian version of a light machinegun chambered in an intermediate caliber (762x39) that doesn't even qualify as what is generally accepted as the definition of a battle rifle.

I will preface this by saying that if you want to have the discussion, then you need to accept the fact that we are talking military weapons. You cannot default to "this is a discussion of civilian use of the weapon in a non-military situation" or "we are going to battle" which comes up often when those with weak arguments are trying to bolster their weak positions. The bottom line is that civilian use of military-inspired/driven kit (rifles, optics, accessories, and other gear) has exploded over the past 10 years for obvious reasons. It has spawned an avalanche of cheap imitations and the inevitable comparisons to the real thing by those that choose (by necessity or not) to buy something less. I fail to understand why folks who buy this stuff insist on trying to compare it to the real thing. This applies to everything, but especially rifles and optics. I am only saying this because this thread has this stuff "sprinkled" throughout.

Back to the point. We always end up in these debates about the effectiveness of intermediate cartridges vs. full power cartridges (usually 5.56 vs. .308). The bottom line is that the full power cartridge is not practical for general purpose use on the modern battlefield. Lots of smart people who've actually been in the fight (from Vietnam to present) have made this decision for good reason. Yet, we still have the Internet commando crowd that somehow knows better even though the majority have never been anywhere in harm's way.

The full power cartridge (.308 for this discussion) in a platform other than a crew-served weapon or sniper rifle does have a place on today's battlefield in the designated marksman role. A DM equipped with a platform in .308 bridges a gap. That gap does not apply to every rifleman. The 5.56 has gotten a bad rap IMO. It isn't the cartridge that has been less than effective, it is the projectile- M855. Our biggest problem is that we always want something, I don't care what it is, that does everything well. That is an unrealistic expectation. The key is understanding what you really need and then striking a balance with what is available.

Finally- if you don't have a pedigree in doctrine or tactics, don't try to talk it. I hope this all makes sense.

Grand Slam!

 

[Forest]

the M60 tips the scales at almost 25 pounds, the EBR tips in at 11.5 pounds...that is no where near close. it is best to check facts rather than make assumptions.

Well the source I have is the EBR is closer to 17lbs than it is 11.5 pounds. Heck a M1A with a heavy barrel and standard stock (no optics or bipod) is 11lbs.

And 17lbs is a pig. It may be a smaller pig - but a pig none the less.

bare in mind those classes are 'carbine' classes...

Would it make it better if I called them "Rifle" classes? I have seen people bring larger rifles to such classes. The name is not important, what is imporant is they are full days where you are carrying and shooting your longarm against targets at typical distances using standard shooting positions (meaning not from a bench or a foxhole with sandbags).

It's a great way to learn real quick what you really want to be carrying around all day and how that extra weight effects your skills when your fatigued after a day in the sun shooting drills for 8 hours.

the best rifle beyond a military assault rifle for this role would be a combat rifle, seeing as they are essentially the same platforms just semi.

Not sure where you are going with this.

'battle rifle' is not just a token term, it is in the same regard as automobiles are classified as pick up trucks, SUVs, economy cars, sports cars, luxury cars, super cars, hyper cars, ect..

I would disagree. "Battle" implies military use, the military does not use such designations. For example the US Military uses the terms:
Carbine, 5.56MM, M4
Rifle, 5.56MM, M16A2
Rifle, 7.62MM, M14
Rifle, 7.62MM, M14E2
Rifle, Caliber .30, M1
Rifle, Caliber .30, M1917 (ENFIELD)

Note the lack of adjectives such as "Battle", "Combat", or "Assault" to the military they are just "Rifles" or "Carbines" standard longarms of our fighting forces. The only time adjectives are use are for special (limited issue) firearms for snipers or designated marksmen. It's not like a military is going to issue a 5.56 rifle to 'Assault' a position, then take those rifles and issue a 'Battle rifle' when a battle to defend said position takes place.

BTW to use your Car anogy the Military classifies vehicles in a similar manner: "Truck, 1/4 ton" (Jeep) or "Truck, 2 1/2 Ton" (the Duece and a half) while the civilian world would classify them as "SUV" or "Flatbed Truck" - but they are still 'trucks'.

 

[Forest]

.The full power cartridge (.308 for this discussion) in a platform other than a crew-served weapon or sniper rifle does have a place on today's battlefield in the designated marksman role. A DM equipped with a platform in .308 bridges a gap. That gap does not apply to every rifleman. The 5.56 has gotten a bad rap IMO. It isn't the cartridge that has been less than effective, it is the projectile- M855. Our biggest problem is that we always want something, I don't care what it is, that does everything well. That is an unrealistic expectation. The key is understanding what you really need and then striking a balance with what is available.
..

Well said!

 

[SCARCQB]

Everyone has got terminologies all messed up.

From What I understand,

Battle Rifles are Military rifles that fire a full powered cartridge( 308, 30-06, 8mm mauser,7.62x54R ), This definition fits various Military Bolt action rifles ( Mosin, Enfield, Mauser, Spingfield Etc), Semi- Auto ( FAL, later versions of the M14, G3 , Garand, Johnson Etc) or Selective Fire versions ( M14, FAL, G3, CETME Etc) the key word is " Full powered cartridge + Military Rifle" ( Mostly used by infantry)

Assault Rifles are magazine fed,Selective fire Rifles/ Carbines that fire an intermediate power catridge. AK47s, M16, FNC, Etc.. fall into this category. Intermediate cartridges are generally less powerful ( Ghey-er) compared to full powered cartridges ( 7.62x39, 5.56, 5.45 etc)( true Assault Rifles must meet all requirements, if you do not have a happy switch... Its just a semi- automatic rifle)

Sub-machineguns or machine pistols are magazine fed, selective fire weapons that fire a pistol caliber cartridge.


New Terms that have effed up definitions are the following:
Combat Rifle? I DO NOT HAVE A CLUE
Sub-carbines? ( Really short Assault rifles- or SBRs , semi- or selective fire)
PDWs? (shoulder fired weapons that fire small , bottleneck, sometimes underpowered rounds.. Not quite a pistol round, but is also less powerful and smaller than an intermediate powered round. Like the 5.7x28mm)
DMRs or Designated marksman rifle... KevP nailed that one
Sniper Rifle: We all know what those are right?
EBR : Enhanced Battle Rifle.. Sage / M14
EMR: Enhanced marksman rifle... USMC version of the EBR
EBR : Evil Black Rifle ( Just like Saturday night special)
MBR: Main Battle Rifle... Thats a new one... subject to interpretation
PCR: Politically Correct Rifle ( Damn you Olympic Arms for giving to to libtard pressure)
SAW: Squad automatic weapon.. usually a fully automatic rifle/ Machinegun that fires the standard issue rifle round issued to infantry troops. The M249 Minimi , Ultimax 100. Negev , RPK , RPD fit this role ( fires an intermediate round just like assault rifles)... The 1918 BAR also was in that category.. as the 30-06 was a staple infantry round.
GPMG: General Purpose machinegun...Crew served, mounted, Man-portable machineguns chambered in full powered rifle cartridges. ( M60, M240 Etc)
Light machineguns: Man-portable GMPG/ SAW
Heavy machineguns: Crew served, mounted Machineguns that fire Full powered rounds- Anti Aircraft rounds... example: M2 50 BMG




That is why when folks ask me about a " Battle Rifle" , Rifles chambered in 308,7.62x54, 8mm,30-06 come into mind. For that I still like the M14 platform, followed by the FAL

My Colt 6920 ... is just a semi-automatic rifle

 

[knownalien]

I will preface this by saying that if you want to have the discussion, then you need to accept the fact that we are talking military weapons. You cannot default to "this is a discussion of civilian use of the weapon in a non-military situation" or "we are going to battle" which comes up often when those with weak arguments are trying to bolster their weak positions. The bottom line is that civilian use of military-inspired/driven kit (rifles, optics, accessories, and other gear) has exploded over the past 10 years for obvious reasons. It has spawned an avalanche of cheap imitations and the inevitable comparisons to the real thing by those that choose (by necessity or not) to buy something less. I fail to understand why folks who buy this stuff insist on trying to compare it to the real thing. This applies to everything, but especially rifles and optics. I am only saying this because this thread has this stuff "sprinkled" throughout.

I don't really get this. With respect to a civilian mil-spec AR15, aside from a few additional trigger group parts* (for FA), two extra holes in the lower (for FA) and POSSIBLY a shrouded carrier for FA (which many already have in their semi-autos) how are these rifles "cheap imitations?" Because they are not a Colt?


*and I believe some milling

 

[Kevp]

You are right, you don't get it.