Practical use of battle rifles

The place for general discussion about guns, gun (and gun parts) technology discussion, gun reviews, and gun specific range reports; and shooting, training, techniques, reviews and reports.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Vonz90 »

I have battle rifles on the brain a bit right now. I just sent my G3 off to get a rail welded on and have been shopping for a scope / mount and thinking about new furniture too.

Also, following the goings on between the Turks and Russians in Syria, in the pictures the Turks are all armed with G3s. So it got we wondering, if one found oneself leading a unit armed with battle rifles (M14/G3/FAL whatever) in place of M4/M16s, how would it actually impact capabilities and tactics?

I could see it being a plus for range and hitting power (say against vehicles and so forth) with the minus being fewer rounds, volume of fire and so forth).

My two deployments that were ground based, I would say they would have been an advantage in the first and detrimental in the second (theoretically, we never had contact the first one and the second one nothing that would be called a firefight).

So, for those with more experience or wider thoughts, what do you think?
Precision
Posts: 5268
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Precision »

I do not have experience.
The AR / 5.56 has lots of faults, but quantity has a quality all its own. I know I can carry roughly double the round in 5.56 that I can in 308. Also my follow up shots are much closer to POA when I rapid fire.

When the make the gun / cartridge without tradeoff we will all buy it and only it. lol
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
My little part of the blogosphere. http://blogletitburn.wordpress.com/
Langenator
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Langenator »

For starters, in order to get the most out of the better distance capabilities of the 7.62 NATO round, you're going to need more training, especially more training shooting at those extended ranges - say, 250-500m.

You'll probably need to do more marksmanship training, in general, because, as you note, each rifleman's basic ammo load is going to shrink, 7.62NATO being both heavier and bulkier than 5.56. So, in a firefight, you need to do a better job of making those shots count.

You'll probably also end up wanting to alter the structure of your rifle squads, as well. (Depending on what they look like now.) The U.S. Army rifle squad TOE - 2 4 man fire teams, each with 3 rifles (one with a GL) and a LMG - doesn't work as well with 7.62 as 5.56. A 5.56 SAW is kind of silly when the rifles are 7.62. And a 7.62 belt fed probably wouldn't work as well at the fire team level. It's too heavy, the ammo is too heavy, and to get best effect out of it really requires a 2 or preferably 3 man team (AG to carry the tripd, AB to carry more ammo).

So your infantry squad might add one man, and have 2 3 man rifle teams (team leader, grenadier, rifleman) and a machine gun team (gunner, AG, AB) plus the squad leader. And your tactics might look more like German infantry tactics in WWII - the MG is the main killing weapon, and the rest of the squad supports it.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by randy »

I know that as I get older, my AR-15 is getting a lot easier for me to carry and maneuver than an M-1A (based on experience with the neighbor's M-1A).
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Netpackrat »

An often ignored attribute of the full power battle rifle is better ability to turn cover into concealment.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Vonz90 »

I chatted about this with the Marine son (he is a pilot in training, but of course he went through Bulldog and TBS so he is trained on infantry tactics as well).

His take is that trading out ARs for battle rifles woukd be an advantage in some uses, but woukd be a big handicap when doing the covering fire part of fire and maneuver since the volume off fire would go down and that is the point of that aspect.

He also thought it would be harder for training as there are a lot of recoil adverse types out there.

I think he is likely right on that. Although personally I always shot M14 and G3 better than AR. It took a lot of trigger time to get good with the M16/M4 for me.
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by BDK »

What about integral suppressed 308s? Would that help the flinch?

It seems like it might be a good idea for mountains/deserts/open country, and less useful in cities. I know nothing of combat, just extrapolating on what I would want to use to defend myself in that country.

Of course, I think a 10” barreled 10MM carbine makes the most sense in CQB, with a sidearm which takes the same mags, and no one does that, so I could be an idiot.
Precision
Posts: 5268
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Precision »

BDK wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:22 pm What about integral suppressed 308s? Would that help the flinch?

It seems like it might be a good idea for mountains/deserts/open country, and less useful in cities. I know nothing of combat, just extrapolating on what I would want to use to defend myself in that country.

Of course, I think a 10” barreled 10MM carbine makes the most sense in CQB, with a sidearm which takes the same mags, and no one does that, so I could be an idiot.
I know I am an idiot, been told at least 1000 times. As the saying goes, if 2 or 3 people call you a jackass, disregard. When it is dozens you might want to get fitted for a bit and bridle. LOL

For the record, if they made a good 10mm Carbine in non-delayed blowback and integrally surpressed it. I would be all over that for CQB.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
My little part of the blogosphere. http://blogletitburn.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by Netpackrat »

Honestly 300blk renders PCCs/SMGs obsolete for the most part.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: Practical use of battle rifles

Post by blackeagle603 »

My completely unqualified flight deck squid opinion...

If upgrading 5.56 platform to a 6.5 is off the table then probably stick with 5.56 for reasons stated about (covering fire, qty of rounds carried etc).
Get more convenient personal explosives capability and indirect fire capability into the hands of the average grunts. Why shoot them when you can blow them up from cover?
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
Post Reply