Is there any place for the battle rifle in modern warfare? As an infantry rifle, and assault rifle is more effective, and a dedicated marksman's rifle and LMG are both more effective at their intended tasks. What role would a battle rifle actually serve?
>>30035564
shooting people
>>30035564
A DMR *is* a battle rifle.
>>30035564
>dat springer scope mount
Its like you dont want to have groupings anon.
>>30035611
Based on his barrel profile, he really doesn't
>>30035564
Superior at longer engagement ranges, and somewhat more effective rounds in thick brush due to the heavier round. I don't really see them doing anything a squad with machinegunners and a marksman can't do.
>>30035564
If bringing a belt fed weapon is no good
If there is going to many barriers that will be cover to 5.56 but concealment to 7.62
Hypothetically, larger cartridges better optimized (i.e. fewer design constraints) for body armor penetration. They could come into play if there comes another prolonged conventional war between two nations.
Different but kinda-related question:
WHY exactly is the "assault rifle", ie, the high-capacity, rapid-fire, intermediate/low-powered rifle, now the universal standard weapon?
I know the simplest answer is "because soldiers can carry more boolits", but is that really all there is to it?
I know the smartass answer is "because it's better to wound the enemy than kill em" but I am seriously skeptical of that. Ask any given grunt if he *doesn't* want the bad guy to drop dead when he shoots him.
Is it because the nature of the fight has changed?
So rather than say, "the enemy is 1000 meters ahead, we will suppress them, flank them, and eliminate them, and seize the objective", now it's "let's go on a patrol and see if they shoot at us. If they do, just hose down the area until CAS shows up."
Or is it simply that humans are a lot easier to kill than we thought back in the early 20th century... .30-06 is a big game cartridge, .223 is a varmint cartridge, and turns out, humans are closer to prairie dogs than moose.
Just wondering here.
>>30035905
Because soldiers with assault rifles can carry more ammunition on their person and fire rapidly while still retaining effective combat accuracy. This is extremely important, because fire and maneuver tactics rely on effective suppressive fire. Effective suppressive fire needs lots of bullets, and they need to be somewhat accurate in order to actually suppress the target.
Full size caliber rifles won't let line troops carry enough ammo, and they are harder to keep on target during rapid fire.
Also, logistics. Not as glamorous, but if you have to resupply an outpost and you have limited vehicle cargo space, you can pack in a lot more small rounds than you can large rounds.
The reason everybody switched after WW2 is because it was more effective. Before WW2, militaries still retained the marksmanship concept of soldiers firing, and doctrine favored powerful and long range weapons. But from lessons (such as official studies done by the US after the war), we learned that fire superiority was what won fights, and that soldiers under fire were not going to be taking doctrinal marksmanship stances. Also the average small arms engagement range was below 300 meters, meaning the advantage of full power rounds was negligible. For engagements beyond that range, air power, embedded artillery, and DMRs were more useful than giving every soldier a full power rifle.
>>30035564
Failing any place on the battlefield, battle rifles always have a place in my heart.
>>30035583
A lot of DMRs are chambered in 5.56 tho. It's not a role totally filled by larger calibers.
They have no place in the average military's kill people roll
They do if you operate in places with dangerous animals, lots of trees, or anywhere else where the necessity to shoot through things or kill larger things is a larger priority than killing the enemy accurately and efficiently
>>30037838
I can't think of a DMR in 5.56mm. Anyway, the point stands that battle rifles live on primarily through DMRs. They aren't dead, just repurposed.
>>30035564
Good question OP, there seems to be a lot of buzz surrounding battle rifles lately. Ill share with you guys my knowledge as I'm expert on the subject.
First, lets go back to a time just prior to world war one. This was a time when nearly all 1st world countries were industrialized and capable of fielding the latest small arms technology. the rifles of the time were generally bolt action rifles chambered in the new smokeless cartidges, many of which we now consider "full size rifle cartridges". these rifle were commonly fielded by most nations military's for several decades.
What changed this trend was the technological advances in that occurred during WW2. Warfare had become much more mobile and mechanized, necessitating weapons capable of a higher rate of fire. Countries like the US that fielded semi automatic rifles such as the Garand were at an advantage to countries still using the bolt gun technology from ww1 and prior. Many countries realized the individual soldier needed a mobile and light weight weapon that was capable of delivering rapid, accurate fire. Technology wasn't able to catch up with this need until the tail end of the war with weapons like the sturmgewehr and sks (both of which were fielded in small number, with only a handful of sks being fielded as an experimental rifle ). many countries fielded SMGs as well as some semi and fully automatic rifles in very limited quantities.
After the war is when self loading service rifles began being fielded in substantial numbers. This is a somewhat transitional period as most countries still used their "full size" cartridges in their service rifles. With the exception of the 7.62x39 and 7.92x33 rounds, most countries continued to issue their full size rounds due to the massive stock piles of already existing ammunition as well as outdated doctrine.
Continued....
>>30038336
SDM-R
SAM-R
Mk12
Of course there are DMRs in the .308 and yes a bunch of them were repurposed m14s but they're all getting phased out and the only reason they were even brought back into service in the first place was because the US wasn't prepared for what they signed themselves up for in the Middle East. Now that they have more viable alternatives all those m14s can go back to the honor guard units from whence they came.
>>30038336
>I can't think of a DMR in 5.56mm
The Navy has the Mk.12 SPR, the Muhreens have the SAMR, and the Army has the SDM-R.
>>30037838
>>30038336
an SPR is 5.56 a DMR is 7.62
>>30038336
KAC SR15
>>30038461
>tripfag claiming he's an expert on anything
Even if you are I'm obligated to call you a faggot
>>30038492
Wrong. DMR is a rifle used in a DM role. That can be any caliber that unit is directed/chooses to field.
>>30035564
Jesus that carry handle is way to short on the Ar15 and its triggering the fuck out of my ocd.
>>30038564
I mean ar10.
>>30038461
WW2 taught every one that a full size service cartridge was unnecessary for the average soldier and was actually a hindrance due to the excessive weight and recoil. During the 1950s-70s most 1st world countries began researching,developing, and fielding their own intermediate calibers. Rifles such as the M14, cetme, FAL, etc. were just technological stepping stones between the old bolt action service rifles of WW2, and the modern assault rifles of today. Most developed nations issue intermediate caliber weapons to this day because they are lighter, more maneuverable, lighter recoiling, and have a higher capacity than a "battle rifle". Full size cartridges are only utilized in GPMGs and sniper/marksmen weapons that are enhanced for long range accuracy. If you are a dense battle rifle fan boy and don't want believe that battle rifles are a piece of history, at this point i will directly compare them to modern weapons.
Assault weapons
>lighter
>less recoil
>higher capacity
>same effective range as battle rifle
Battle rifle
>more powerful
Also a common misconception is that that battle rifles have the advantage of a further effective range. this is simply untrue. A purpose built weapon with an optic is required to utilize the long range benefits of the full size cartridge. This is would be a DMR/marksman rifle, not a battle rifle. In closing, battle rifles are not used anymore for a reason. If they are better than modern assault rifles, then why are they so rarely used?
>>30038691
More power will become an advantage again when US soldiers start wearing powered armor that can shrug off assault rifle mag dumps. I give that 20-30 years at this point given the pace of armor and exoskeleton research.
>>30038716
