Skip to main content
What’s the point in having the assault rifle when the battle rifle is much better and can conserve ammunition much better than that of the assault rifle?
Many less battle rifle cartridges would be made than the assault rifle cartridges. I love both weapons, but what is the real point? Just give the BR the same amount of ammo as the AR and now the cheaper, less reliable rifle is obselete and would no longer be in service. Edit: im looking for LORE reasons, not just “sandbox” i understand that much. I just want some kind of lore to back it up
I’d say the biggest reason the keep the ma5’s is because the UNSC wants to keep more variety in the armory since some marines tend to like the gun series as a whole. I’d say it may also be because people at Bungie and 343 wanted to add more variety in the games’ weapon sandbox.
From a gameplay perspective it's down to having variety in the sandbox, from a lore perspective I would assume it's still in active service because of it's reliability with officers, marines & even Spartans on the field, it's use is probably more suited for close quarters crowd control, something the Battle Rifle might struggle with depending on the operator, I don't recall many (if any) complaints about it's reliability on the battlefield in lore.
Faster rate of fire, comes in handy when you're up close to the enemy but it still allows you to hold your own at mid range unlike the smg. Also, I don't know the production and distribution costs for unsc weapons but you might've answered your own question, they could be cheaper.
You said so yourself, it's cheaper. If it's cheaper, it will still be made and used.

But seriously, the AR and BR have distinct roles. An AR is a close range automatic weapon while a BR is a semi-automatic (3 round burst actually) mid range rifle. I think the better argument would be why have a BR and a DMR since they overlap more, but I don't want the DMR gang to get on my case lol.
You said so yourself, it's cheaper. If it's cheaper, it will still be made and used.

But seriously, the AR and BR have distinct roles. An AR is a close range automatic weapon while a BR is a semi-automatic (3 round burst actually) mid range rifle. I think the better argument would be why have a BR and a DMR since they overlap more, but I don't want the DMR gang to get on my case lol.
Technically, even though the weapon is cheaper, it would cost the UNSC more than they should pay. A battle rifle can be great at close range, especially against enemies without energy shields.
Faster rate of fire, comes in handy when you're up close to the enemy but it still allows you to hold your own at mid range unlike the smg. Also, I don't know the production and distribution costs for unsc weapons but you might've answered your own question, they could be cheaper.
With BOTH the weapons, it actually isn’t cheaper. If they just keep the more expensive one, they will actually pay less because of less spent ammo. Still, the battle rifle can do everything the assault rifle can, with maybe just being passed by close range spamming, and even then the assault rifle still loses time to time. The battle rifle can be good for close and medium range.
Krypt1194 wrote:
You said so yourself, it's cheaper. If it's cheaper, it will still be made and used.

But seriously, the AR and BR have distinct roles. An AR is a close range automatic weapon while a BR is a semi-automatic (3 round burst actually) mid range rifle. I think the better argument would be why have a BR and a DMR since they overlap more, but I don't want the DMR gang to get on my case lol.
Technically, even though the weapon is cheaper, it would cost the UNSC more than they should pay. A battle rifle can be great at close range, especially against enemies without energy shields.
The fire rate is an issue. The MA5 is a purpose-built automatic weapon. While the BR can shoot at an automatic fire rate, it's not really built for that. Not to get too technical, but I'm sure the tensile strength of the barrel isn't as good as the MA5, since it's not really intended to be used in that capacity. With poor tensile strength, the barrel will break apart the more ammunition you send through at a continuous rate.

There's a reason the US military has M4s, SAWs, and many other weapons. Each has a purpose, which is part of why you hear the term "tactical" used often when discussing military equipment. It means the equipment has a specific use. The MA5 is tactically used for suppression while the BR is tactically used for mid-range offense. Gameplay is obviously different, but I'm trying to provide you an in-universe reason (and real world reason) why the UNSC would have different weapons with different purposes.
The AR in my opinion downs someone as quickly as a BR but that’s only if you can hit all headshots. Perhaps I’m just better with a BR, or maybe it allows you to hit constant headshots easier, but I’d trust in a BR before a MA5, I’m in agreement with you here.
Krypt1194 wrote:
You said so yourself, it's cheaper. If it's cheaper, it will still be made and used.

But seriously, the AR and BR have distinct roles. An AR is a close range automatic weapon while a BR is a semi-automatic (3 round burst actually) mid range rifle. I think the better argument would be why have a BR and a DMR since they overlap more, but I don't want the DMR gang to get on my case lol.
Technically, even though the weapon is cheaper, it would cost the UNSC more than they should pay. A battle rifle can be great at close range, especially against enemies without energy shields.
The fire rate is an issue. The MA5 is a purpose-built automatic weapon. While the BR can shoot at an automatic fire rate, it's not really built for that. Not to get too technical, but I'm sure the tensile strength of the barrel isn't as good as the MA5, since it's not really intended to be used in that capacity. With poor tensile strength, the barrel will break apart the more ammunition you send through at a continuous rate.

There's a reason the US military has M4s, SAWs, and many other weapons. Each has a purpose, which is part of why you hear the term "tactical" used often when discussing military equipment. It means the equipment has a specific use. The MA5 is tactically used for suppression while the BR is tactically used for mid-range offense. Gameplay is obviously different, but I'm trying to provide you an in-universe reason (and real world reason) why the UNSC would have different weapons with different purposes.
The BR is basically a brand new M16A4 with a scope. The AR is basically an M4A1 with it’s rifling ruined. This means the bullets are just spat out infinitely instead of accurately and efficiently. You can’t compare having a three round burst rifle to an automatic rifle. It’s like having two weapons serving similar purposes. Halo 5 is the only game that actually shows a reason to have the rifle, because of a longer range, better accuracy, and reliability actually exists. Still, i would take the BR if it had the same amount of mags as the AR. What i’m saying is the rifles could theoretically serve the same purpose and could cut expenses for the UNSC. Humanity TODAY thinks that full auto is just a waste of ammo, and thats with a reliable, accurate gun. Not to even think about more expensive ammo that misses all but 16 shots at 25 meters. Even grunts before halo 5 would typically be safe from all types of damage from an AR. Realistically, the AR is a BR due to the full power rifle cartridges. So, what is the point of having an ammo wasting BR while the second one is accurate and more reliable? It’s like shooting slugs out of a smooth bore barreled shotgun. It works, but VERY inaccurate. The rounds just spray out and barely hit. Even when they do hit, they don’t damage.

The thing is, the BR can do everything that the AR can, plus more. Including medium ranged accurate fire, and conserving ammo. This means that the BR is a much more reliable and just an all around better rifle.
Krypt1194 wrote:
Faster rate of fire, comes in handy when you're up close to the enemy but it still allows you to hold your own at mid range unlike the smg. Also, I don't know the production and distribution costs for unsc weapons but you might've answered your own question, they could be cheaper.
With BOTH the weapons, it actually isn’t cheaper. If they just keep the more expensive one, they will actually pay less because of less spent ammo. Still, the battle rifle can do everything the assault rifle can, with maybe just being passed by close range spamming, and even then the assault rifle still loses time to time. The battle rifle can be good for close and medium range.
Ok, you make a point when it comes to costs but the automatic fire is still an option that comes in handy when you're fighting aliens that like to show up in hordes, especially in the case for grunts and drones. And yes I'll admit, for us the br is better for killing off those 2 kinds of swarms because of headshot capabilities, but you have to consider that the marines aren't always as fast or accurate as a guy using a controller against aliens that sometimes tend to just sit in the open or slowly march towards you. When you're being over run by a bunch of aliens whose primary strength is shear numbers and you can't get a clear shot in a fast paced environment, sometimes you might want to fall back on the spray in pray tactic. That goes double for the flood, especially since accurate weapons like the sniper rifle has proven to be ineffective against them since they tank they damage or just get back up after being killed, so a close/mid range automatic gun that can tear the body apart becomes preferable real quick. I'd bring up the infection forms but at that point you're probably gonna want smg's, which is something chief didn't have access to that on the autumn.
However, I guess it's a little odd the saw doesn't replace the assault rifles since they seem like heavy versions of them. They fulfil the same task but with the added ability to tear through light vehicles.
Krypt1194 wrote:
Faster rate of fire, comes in handy when you're up close to the enemy but it still allows you to hold your own at mid range unlike the smg. Also, I don't know the production and distribution costs for unsc weapons but you might've answered your own question, they could be cheaper.
With BOTH the weapons, it actually isn’t cheaper. If they just keep the more expensive one, they will actually pay less because of less spent ammo. Still, the battle rifle can do everything the assault rifle can, with maybe just being passed by close range spamming, and even then the assault rifle still loses time to time. The battle rifle can be good for close and medium range.
Ok, you make a point when it comes to costs but the automatic fire is still an option that comes in handy when you're fighting aliens that like to show up in hordes, especially in the case for grunts and drones. And yes I'll admit, for us the br is better for killing off those 2 kinds of swarms because of headshot capabilities, but you have to consider that the marines aren't always as fast or accurate as a guy using a controller against aliens that sometimes tend to just sit in the open or slowly march towards you. When you're being over run by a bunch of aliens whose primary strength is shear numbers and you can't get a clear shot in a fast paced environment, sometimes you might want to fall back on the spray in pray tactic. That goes double for the flood, especially since accurate weapons like the sniper rifle has proven to be ineffective against them since they tank they damage or just get back up after being killed, so a close/mid range automatic gun that can tear the body apart becomes preferable real quick. I'd bring up the infection forms but at that point you're probably gonna want smg's, which is something chief didn't have access to that on the autumn.
However, I guess it's a little odd the saw doesn't replace the assault rifles since they seem like heavy versions of them. They fulfil the same task but with the added ability to tear through light vehicles.
True, but an SMG, having a stock that is much too short to use, could be used as a sidearm where as the two weapons introduced in Halo 2 would be infinitely better than having one that doesn’t really combine the two very well. A BR/SMG combo would be good because the magnum would not have a real place when the BR is already in use. The SMG uses a lot of smaller ammo, which could properly be produced in thousands and still not cost very much. The small, weak ammo has the ability to destroy flood spores and kill enemies in close quarters, the powerful and expensive battle rifle ammo can destroy enemies at medium range.
EDIT: The designers of the battle rifle could add a fully automatic selector switch, much like a modern AR-15. Two settings. Burst, auto. (Plus safe, and even a semi if needed) Now, you have the best of both worlds, auto would shoot slower than the assault rifle, while still maintaining the damage and can kill enemies in numbers.
Krypt1194 wrote:
Krypt1194 wrote:
Faster rate of fire, comes in handy when you're up close to the enemy but it still allows you to hold your own at mid range unlike the smg. Also, I don't know the production and distribution costs for unsc weapons but you might've answered your own question, they could be cheaper.
With BOTH the weapons, it actually isn’t cheaper. If they just keep the more expensive one, they will actually pay less because of less spent ammo. Still, the battle rifle can do everything the assault rifle can, with maybe just being passed by close range spamming, and even then the assault rifle still loses time to time. The battle rifle can be good for close and medium range.
Ok, you make a point when it comes to costs but the automatic fire is still an option that comes in handy when you're fighting aliens that like to show up in hordes, especially in the case for grunts and drones. And yes I'll admit, for us the br is better for killing off those 2 kinds of swarms because of headshot capabilities, but you have to consider that the marines aren't always as fast or accurate as a guy using a controller against aliens that sometimes tend to just sit in the open or slowly march towards you. When you're being over run by a bunch of aliens whose primary strength is shear numbers and you can't get a clear shot in a fast paced environment, sometimes you might want to fall back on the spray in pray tactic. That goes double for the flood, especially since accurate weapons like the sniper rifle has proven to be ineffective against them since they tank they damage or just get back up after being killed, so a close/mid range automatic gun that can tear the body apart becomes preferable real quick. I'd bring up the infection forms but at that point you're probably gonna want smg's, which is something chief didn't have access to that on the autumn.
However, I guess it's a little odd the saw doesn't replace the assault rifles since they seem like heavy versions of them. They fulfil the same task but with the added ability to tear through light vehicles.
True, but an SMG, having a stock that is much too short to use, could be used as a sidearm where as the two weapons introduced in Halo 2 would be infinitely better than having one that doesn’t really combine the two very well. A BR/SMG combo would be good because the magnum would not have a real place when the BR is already in use. The SMG uses a lot of smaller ammo, which could properly be produced in thousands and still not cost very much. The small, weak ammo has the ability to destroy flood spores and kill enemies in close quarters, the powerful and expensive battle rifle ammo can destroy enemies at medium range.
EDIT: The designers of the battle rifle could add a fully automatic selector switch, much like a modern AR-15. Two settings. Burst, auto. (Plus safe, and even a semi if needed) Now, you have the best of both worlds, auto would shoot slower than the assault rifle, while still maintaining the damage and can kill enemies in numbers.
Yeah the 2 settings option for the br sounds pretty good. Might even be a fun mechanic in the games if handled correctly.
The BR, in the lore, is more of a mid to long range precision weapon made to stop enemies with few bursts.
The AR fills the gap that the BR cannot cover, and the fact it can fire full auto without going COMPLETELY bonkers is probably a useful thing in many situations.
0
To know the Lore is to know Halo
"Dont be spoiled, dont start a fight. Always be careful, here at night. Because the Spartans might come, in suits that weigh half a ton. And they'll steal from you all you gots, just like they did from Colonel Watts."
The BR, in the lore, is more of a mid to long range precision weapon made to stop enemies with few bursts.
The AR fills the gap that the BR cannot cover, and the fact it can fire full auto without going COMPLETELY bonkers is probably a useful thing in many situations.
A battle rifle can and has been used in CQB. The only situation where the BR can’t be used is actually pretty rare. Flood infection forms like to rush you in hordes. But even in this event, they will most likely be attracted by the corpses to your left and infect those to kill you, which the BR can be used in, and would be better than the AR in this situation.
Krypt1194 wrote:
The BR, in the lore, is more of a mid to long range precision weapon made to stop enemies with few bursts.
The AR fills the gap that the BR cannot cover, and the fact it can fire full auto without going COMPLETELY bonkers is probably a useful thing in many situations.
A battle rifle can and has been used in CQB. The only situation where the BR can’t be used is actually pretty rare. Flood infection forms like to rush you in hordes. But even in this event, they will most likely be attracted by the corpses to your left and infect those to kill you, which the BR can be used in, and would be better than the AR in this situation.
I'd think the AR would be far superior in fighting the Flood. It has a faster fire rate, simple as that.

Look OP, the AR and BR fill different roles. It's really doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. There is some overlap where they can do each other's jobs occasionally, like with many other weapons, but for the most part they fill different roles. The M4 in the military is a general, all purpose tool that can be used in just about any combat situation. It's reliable at range, and can do damage up close. That doesn't mean we should just ditch the SAW. The SAW fills a specific role as well.

Tbh, You seem pretty dead set on believing the MA5 is unnecessary regardless of what anyone else says. You do you OP.
Krypt1194 wrote:
The BR, in the lore, is more of a mid to long range precision weapon made to stop enemies with few bursts.
The AR fills the gap that the BR cannot cover, and the fact it can fire full auto without going COMPLETELY bonkers is probably a useful thing in many situations.
A battle rifle can and has been used in CQB. The only situation where the BR can’t be used is actually pretty rare. Flood infection forms like to rush you in hordes. But even in this event, they will most likely be attracted by the corpses to your left and infect those to kill you, which the BR can be used in, and would be better than the AR in this situation.
I'd think the AR would be far superior in fighting the Flood. It has a faster fire rate, simple as that.

Look OP, the AR and BR fill different roles. It's really doesn't get much more cut and dry than that. There is some overlap where they can do each other's jobs occasionally, like with many other weapons, but for the most part they fill different roles. The M4 in the military is a general, all purpose tool that can be used in just about any combat situation. It's reliable at range, and can do damage up close. That doesn't mean we should just ditch the SAW. The SAW fills a specific role as well.

Tbh, You seem pretty dead set on believing the MA5 is unnecessary regardless of what anyone else says. You do you OP.
The M249 and M4 is a completely different argument. An LMG is necessary. I am arguing about two service rifles. I guess you got confused? Machine guns fill specific roles, but there will never be two standard issued infantry rifles. There may be a difference in service rifles when considering Spec ops guys, not so much in a main infantry force.
Edit: I’m not just being stubborn, im including my gameplay experience in my judgement. I agree, the flood infection forms can sometimes be annoying when you swapped your AR for a BR, but still you won’t have much trouble when that happens. Just a discussion, dont get upset when i want to keep discussing.
Also, you can’t argue that two rifles can be used because a rifle and a machine gun are both used IRL. Those are two different arguments.
You said so yourself, it's cheaper. If it's cheaper, it will still be made and used.

But seriously, the AR and BR have distinct roles. An AR is a close range automatic weapon while a BR is a semi-automatic (3 round burst actually) mid range rifle. I think the better argument would be why have a BR and a DMR since they overlap more, but I don't want the DMR gang to get on my case lol.
Rofl BR all the way
All I know for sure is, its hard to suppress with a BR.
0
To know the Lore is to know Halo
"Dont be spoiled, dont start a fight. Always be careful, here at night. Because the Spartans might come, in suits that weigh half a ton. And they'll steal from you all you gots, just like they did from Colonel Watts."
All I know for sure is, its hard to suppress with a BR.
Thats what the SAW is for