Jack Baruth over at TTAG is writing a series about the origins of the Battle Rifle, and the theory of its use. It’s an interesting read which dredges up the ol’ cartridge debate between .308 (7.62×51) and .223 (5.56×45). A debate which, at this time, appears to have been subdued due to the lack of both for sale at reasonable prices… seriously: 5.56mm is going for what .308 went for 5 months ago!
Anyways, this isn’t so much about the two calibers, but the idea of a big bore battle rifle versus a small bore assault rifle. But beyond that, the issue ultimately becomes one of marksmanship. Here’s a short history why:
Firearms, up until the last 150 years, were typically one-shot affairs for most Armies. Whether they were muzzle loaders in the American Revolutionary War, breach-blocks in the Civil War, and everything in between. While rapid fire firearms like lever-actions and pump actions existed, big armies like the US Army, relied on easy to manufacture single shot weapons. Why? Because contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as an Army of One… they’re generally large groups of soldier each squaring off against one another. Whether marching in line formations or sitting in trenches. They typically pointed all their weapons in one general direction and fired. Marksmanship, in small unit engagements, became increasingly important. When you had a muzzle loader, you had one shot, and then had to either fix bayonets, or reload. This meant making your shots count.
So, as technology improved, this mindset remained. When the US Army left its breach blocks and older rifles for the likes of the Krag and the M1903, they still retained the marksmanship philosophy. The belief was, the one mob of soldiers who can accurately aim and shoot under fire the best when they met another mob of soldiers would win. However, wars were less and less being fought by mobs of soldiers, but with artillery, tanks, planes. Big mobs of men became easy targets, and warfare broke down into small unit type affairs where platoons and squads would engage each other, typically somewhere where there is cover (wide open terrain wasn’t their friend).
This meant big bore rifles meant to engage at hundreds of yards were less effective, and engagement distances declined. This is supported by the results of Project SALVO which studied unit engagements in WWII and found that most combat occurs at around 75-100 yards. Why? Mainly because these small units fought in areas where there was a lot of cover, meaning that the identification of targets and ability to hit back was limited. This also meant that the side with the highest volume of firepower would win most engagements.
So, most armies are at this period of transition. Big bore rifles are less effective at these short ranges, and are too powerful. Weapons like the Stg. 44 and the AK-47 sought to address this, but the US Army made the mistake of staying with a Battle Rifle like the M-14 instead of pursuing something controllable right away. You see, at shorter ranges when dealing with higher volumes of fire, marksmanship becomes less important. In fact, the need to sustain high levels of fire, especially fully automatic fire, led to the adoption of the M-16 rifle, which allowed soldiers to carry more ammo and shoot it faster than ever. But were the results there?
Vietnam is the classic case here. The Assault Rifle War. AK-47s on one side and M-16s on the other. Reliability issues aside, the amount of ammo used was astronomical, with little to no result. 10,000 rounds can be fired and may yield 5 enemy kills. The US Army attempted to fix this issue by installing 3-round burst on the M-16, while the Russians just made more ammunition than they can use in 100 years. Ultimately though, the answer was a return to marksmanship.
If you watch YouTubes showing special forces folks or other military units, one thing you will see today is that they all predominantly shoot semi-auto. Full-auto fire remains useful in the extreme close ranges of CQB where aiming is less about accuracy and more about reflex. Even then, a good trigger can suffice on a semi-auto.
But the point is: marksmanship and a decent semi-auto is becoming the best combination of factors in the 75-100 yard engagement range again. The problem is: weapons which use the 5.56mm lack sufficient firepower to punch through cover or cause significant injury to enemy combatants. This is why we can see a rise in the use of new-age Battle Rifles. Paratrooper FN FALS, FN SCAR-17s, HK M-417s, etc. Short barrel (16″) and lightweight, with features to minimize recoil. These rifles offer similar ergonomics to the AR-15, with far more punch. These rifles can hit hard at the shorter ranges, and still hit hard at the longer ones (~300 yards).
In short: the Battle Rifle was misunderstood and utilized poorly because Armies could not adapt to the changing realities of warfare. A combination of a good reliable semi-auto that is light weight, minimal length, and with a big round (.308) offers the best mix of firepower at short and longer ranges.
