What Is A Battle Rifle?

Portuguese Troops with G-3 Rifles

     Nathaniel, at The Firearms Blog, has an article exploring the taxonomy of military rifles, and, in particular, what constitutes a "battle rifle" versus an "assault rifle"; and what is the distinction, if any, between the two. Obviously, since people cannot even agree as to what is meant by an "assault rifle" (see, e.g., Maxim Popenker's discussion here), the issue of whether "battle rifle" is a subset of "assault rifle" or a different category of its own really becomes one of semantics. Nathaniel notes some other definitions or comments on the issue, including Anthony G Williams' article on assault rifles, which defines as "assault rifle" as: "A standard military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres". Nathaniel notes, however, that this definition can lead to somewhat absurd results where a rifle or carbine may or may not be an "assault rifle" dependent on whether it has a muzzle brake.

     Popenker writes:

The earliest use of a similar term, known to this author, is dated back to the 1918-1920 timeframe, when noted US small arms designer Isaac Lewis designed a series of experimental automatic rifles which he called “Assault phase rifles”. These rifles fired standard US Army issue rifle ammunition of the period, the .30 M1906 (.30-06, 7.62x63mm), and were in direct competition with John Browning’s M1918 BAR automatic rifle. Both Lewis and Browning automatic rifles were designed to same concept of “Walking fire”, originated by the French in around 1915, and first implemented in the ill-fated CSRG M1915 “Chauchat” machine rifle. This concept called for a man-portable automatic weapon with its primary use being to provide suppressive supporting fire for infantry during assaults on entrenched enemy positions.

And as been repeatedly observed, the origin of the term "assault rifle" was from the Nazi Sturmgewehr (STG) 44--a rifle intended to give troops a weapon that could be used like a submachine gun, but firing a more powerful cartridge, for use in assaulting or storming enemy positions. However, this was not the first select rifle fielded by the Germans, let alone other militaries. In looking through some of my references, the authors/editors either make no categorial distinction between "assault rifles" and other types of rifles, or merely lump together all self-loading rifles, whether capable of automatic fire or not. In my copy of Arms & Weapons, published in 1982, it defines an "assault rifle" as:

An automatic firearm developed from the submachine gun during the Second World War for use with intermediate cartridges, i.e., having the size and power between those of pistol and rifle cartridges. Like submachine guns, assault rifles are capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire. Some assault rifles--as, for instance, the Soviet AK-47 and its modifications--are provided with bayonets.

     There is an argument that "assault" rifle should be used to designate a weapon intended to be used for assaulting or storming enemy formations or positions. I had recently made this suggestion. I think there is a difference between something like the AK or STG-44 and other automatic rifles of the day, such as the BAR, in that an "assault rifle" is one that allows individual troops to provide their own suppressing fire as they advance on the enemy position. A 1957 Guns magazine article on the AR-10 related:

Sullivan painted a picture of infantry firepower that got the attention of the most conservative officers. What Sullivan presented was the idea of a shoulder rifle so light, so controllable in full-automatic fire, that each  soldier could advance at a run firing up to 500 shots, continuously.

So I think the concept of an "assault rifle" being one used for "assaulting" an enemy position is a viable starting point on distinguishing the assault rifle from other types of rifles. However, this is merely my attempt to provide meaning to the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon," based on why the MP-43 was renamed the Sturmgewehr, and why the Soviets were so enamored of the AK-47, and not on any historical usage of the term.

     In short, although the term appears to have been in use by the late-1970s or early 1980's, other than the dramatic naming of the STG-44, there is no identifiable military use of the term "assault rifle" as a special category of weapons with certain distinct characteristics. Nevertheless, I think the relevant discussion should not be whether the term "assault rifle" or "battle rifle" are proper terms or recognized by the military, but whether the terms are useful. "Battle rifle" may not be a "proper" military designation, but as long as there are certain characteristics that most everyone can agree on, it is a useful term. If someone refers to a "battle rifle," I know they are probably referring to a full-sized modern rifle shooting 7.62 NATO or something similar. ("Assault rifle" is much more nebulous and, therefore, less useful in my mind).

     In the survivalist literature of the early 1980's, the term "assault rifle" was used to designate a long arm particularly suited for combat or self-defense. That is, while any firearm can be pressed into service as a weapon, certain weapons possessed characteristics--such as being fed from detachable box magazines, semi-loading, and capable of sustained fire--that elevated them above a sporting firearm. These rifles were generally termed by the survivalist authors as "assault rifles," irrespective of whether the weapons were semi-automatic or select fire. Rifles such as the AR-15, AR-18, Mini-14 or other 5.56 mm rifles were often referred to as a "light" assault rifle, whereas the M-14, HK 91, or FAL were designated as "heavy" assault rifles.

     I believe that the negative connotation associated with the term "assault rifle" necessitates our abandoning it as a general reference to modern combat or defensive rifles, and limiting it to something similar to Williams' definition cited earlier. However, it is useful to distinguish a rifle suitable for combat or self-defense from other types of rifles. I suppose the term "combat rifle" is as good as any other. I think it is useful to distinguish the "light" rifles from those shooting "heavier" calibers because there are differing characteristics as to performance, weight, and so on, that can be generalized between the two types. (And perhaps we need a "medium" designation to account for the 7.62x39 and .300 Blackout). Moreover, I think it useful to distinguish not only "light" and "heavy," but also between a rifle for general combat, and those for urban combat/CQB. What we need are mutually agreeable terms for each of these catagories.