First off I have no desire to see this devolve into a pissing contest. Now my experience is limited to the AR15 and AK47. I like piston driven rifles but again my experience is limited.
What are your experiences and thoughts on this?

Reliability and durability.

fully cohesive errythang!

Wood and Steel are a requirement

Unlike an intermediate cartridge "assault rifle," a full power battle rifle is a bit different. Full power cartridge, like a .308 class cartridge, usually a bit longer than the assault rifles, typically not fully auto, reasonably accurate with descent sights. Tend to be a bit heavier, although the first assault rifle, the STG-44 weighed in at 11 lbs. Think M-1, M-14, FAL, G3, etc. Battle rifles also can be bolt guns. Think 1903 Springfield, 98 Mauser, etc. I find it easier to point out examples than to provide a good description.

Reliability
Accuracy
Ergonomics of use, I.E. shouldering the rifle, changing mags, manipulating safety etc.
Weight
price/cost

Wood, Steel and .30 cal.

The funny part, is all the things that make a good "battle rifle" have been determined to be terrible attributes in a rifle to take to battle.

You're question is so general, perhaps you'd be better off to ask some specific questions about battle rifles.  You're question is kinda like asking, "Why do you like girls?" and then expecting to get some valuable answers.

nevermind

I base this on years of working in the Middle East, often designated as the armorer, and spending a bunch of time stateside at defense manufacturers like fabrique nationale

I prefer box fed .308s like the G3 and FN FAL. para model is a bonus. Accept the fact that the rifles will be heavy. When dealing with .30 cal rifles, that's not a bad thing.

If money were no object and plenty of spare parts were available, I could rock a 16" SR-25 with no issue.

That's your assumption. I'm not looking for some magical answer. Just folks thoughts.

I've had, or shot just about every .308 "battle rifle" platform around over the many long years, and currently own a FN SCAR-17 and a S&W M&P10 for .308 ammo consumption. The Scar wins big on light weight and good ergo's, where as the M&P just "feels better" to me. Neither is a magical panacea of perfect rifleliness, but both are excellent tools. Given that the M&P is half the price of the Scar, that's a big plus. The AR-10 style of .308 rifles has grown to be a large field over the years, and there are many excellent choices within that field. I'm not saying the M&P is better than all of them, far from it, but it's an excellent balance between cost, weight, and performance so I went with that over, say some of the more expensive variants. The trade off is there is some garish proprietariansim (word?) which might be an issue to other potential owners
.
The Scar does everything well, and SHOULD be my hands down favorite. However, I just can't get past how flimsy it feels. Maybe it isn't in real life, but it just feels...cheesy, which sucks on a $2.5k rifle.

G-3/M-14 and FAL based rifles are all getting a little long in the tooth. They are marvelous rifles, but are heavy, less modular, and more difficult to kit up these days.

Taking ALL that into consideration, I'd say, that "in my experience", and not necessarily in this order, the best qualities would need to include:

1) Reliability - If it doesn't work when you need it, you picked the wrong one.
2) Weight - Walking from the truck to the bench is one thing. Humping the rifle over hill and dale is another. I'm long past my military days, but I have gone deer hunting with every "battle rifle" class "MSR" I've owned.
3) Ergonomics - Gloves should "fit". So should rifles. Especially in this day and age. No reason not to make a rifle that fits most people, or is adjustable to fit those on either side of "most people".
4) Recoil - Most 308's are pretty mild, but I seem to remember the HK91's skinny butt got painful after awhile. More importantly is 2nd shot follow up. Even the Scar with it's PWS isn't as quick as a 5.56 in that regard.
5) Accuracy - Minute of beer can is realistically all I need, and of all the rifles I've had over the years, it always seemed to me the several FAL's I had were the poorest in this regard. Others say they are great. Not for me.
6) Durability - It's hard to beat a 10 pound piece of steel, plastic, or wood. One would think these industrial age behemoths would last forever. They don't. Pick one that lasts, and has lots of spares available.  
7) Cost - At the end of the day, most of us aren't wealthy, and a $2k rifle is an expenditure that might require a lot of thought and justification. Weigh that against your needs, and expectations.
8) Magazine cost and availability. I added this upon review, it may seem minor, but a rifle that uses a standard, easily obtainable versus proprietary magazine is a strong point to consider.

For me, the advantages of the Scar outweighed some of it's detriments as enumerated above (Cost hurt. Parts availability is dubious. Durability remains suspect. Everything else is a winner). I'm on my 2nd one and it's still my favorite "go to" rifle in the caliber. As mentioned at top, I bought the M&P AFTER my first Scar, and was very impressed. It has some nit-picky issues, but for an out of the box, impingement rifle, it's hard to beat.

In the end, it all comes back to what are your needs, resources, and objectives for such a rifle. The fact that no major world power still fields a "Battle rifle" as a primary piece of infantry kit is telling. OP, If your initial question was purely for rhetorical debate, I think we've just about covered it. If you are considering a purchase, use those eight points and do some homework. The SCAR 17 was my choice, but your prioritization of the above points may be different than mine. Good luck.

Being designed by Eugene Stoerner.

 

A 22LR in the hand is better than a 50BMG in the safe.

A good battle rifle is with you when you need to battle, goes bang when your bugger picker hits the bang button and hits your intended target.

My 10/22 take down lives in my truck in case I find myself in the neighborhood of my gun club and happen to have a little unexpected time to shoot.  I would hardly call it a battle rifle, but if I came to a road that was blocked by a group of protesting angry, let's say 'zombies', you can be sure it will be assembled and loaded before trouble got any closer.  I only have two mags with me for the Glock 26 on my belt and the 500 rounds of 22LR is better than being unarmed.

So, the question becomes:  Are we planning to enter this battle or are we finding ourselves in this battle?

Even though it's design is dated, I have always seen the FAL as the quintessential battle rifle.  Other rifles may have surpassed it with more modern design features , but it is still my favorite by far.

IMHO, the quintessential battle rifle is the M14, and it happens to be my personal favorite.

Robust, reliable, accurate, and supported very well by aftermarket manufacturers/suppliers.

This.

So, why not just a ar10?

"Battle Rifle" is a gun geek made up term, there is not a existing military doctrine that supports the concept.

I guess it is better than the term "Main Battle Rifle"

American and Madcap what exactly do you mean by that statement?

first. battle rifle usually means a full rifle caliber mag fed semi auto ie: m1a, fal, fn49, garand, scar17 , or svd ect.


2nd I t would be easier to divide the traits you want us to choose to me the compromise and trade offs rest in for example

1. reliability
2. weight/size
3. capability- white lights, ir illum& laser for nvd, suppressors, optics ect ect
4. accuracy
5. availiabilty of mags & other accessories.
6. power/range: 308, 223, 458 ect ect.
7. budget

there is a hell of a difference between a 5.56 carbine with a 14.5 barrel and a aimpoint, at about 8lbs and the same rifle with a peq-2a, surefire 962, harris bipod and 1-4x variable and 3 point sling..which would weigh near 11lbs

look at the "truck gun " concept.  an under folder KISS yugo AK vs a 458 socom AR  with an red dot are 2 very different ways to do the same job.  neither are wrong IMO but depending on the environment a ps90 can make an outstanding truck gun.

he means length, weight, recoil, and lower mag capacity  are not seen as advantages when compared to the ak or AR

This seems to exclude any attempt at making a modern battle rifle.  I don't understand this mindset.

According to Wiki, "Battle Rifle" is not a made up term - it was created to meet a specific need.

The term 'battle rifle' is a neologism. It was created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-power assault rifles (StG-44, AK-47 and M16) from the full-powered automatic rifles (FN FAL, M14 rifle and H&K G3) as both classes of firearms have similar appearances and share many of the same features.

It was first used in the late 1990s by various firearms publications and by several notable firearms writers. It is not defined in, or frequently used in, military field manuals or government documents. Prior to the 1990s, the term was not well defined and was used as a general description for all types of military rifles.


Works for me

Other than Wikipedia, can you show me actual doctrine that supports that?  

The US considers them service rifles.

Thank you for bringing some truth to the discussion!

Truth & proof.

The wiki information is truth, and it clearly states "It is not defined in, or frequently used in, military field manuals or government documents."


US military & government omission aside, the term Battle Rifle was created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-power assault rifles (StG-44, AK-47 and M16) from the full-powered automatic rifles (FN FAL, M14 rifle and H&K G3) as both classes of firearms have similar appearances and share many of the same features.

But there was no need to define a term other than people attempting to the smartest guy in the room by being pedantic over made terms.

Just because you disagree with their reasoning doesn't make you correct.

The fact the term battle rifle is not used by or define by those who train for, equip for or conduct battle with rifles pretty much does.

So, what was the question?

Oh yeah, what qualities make for a good battle rifle?

To answer the question a weapon that works in battle, the term does not define a specification.

Using R0N's definition, any rifle that worked in battle at least once makes it a
true battle rifle, but you can't call it a battle rifle because they just don't exist in
military doctrine, and that trumps everything known to man & beast.

I'm glad we got that settled.

You can call it a battle because it is used in battle that is about it

The use of the term battle to signify a class of weapons is gay, the only thing gayer is the use of the term main battle rifle

Battle rifle, assault rifle etc are retarded distinctions.

The only defintions that matter are self-loading rifles and carbines.

So, what the two of you are saying is that this gay thread has gone full retard.

It went full retard when the OP asked what good qualities do you look for in a battle rifle (whatever the hell that actually is since it's not a recognized term).

 

Larry Vickers seems to be an authoritative source on small arms designations, and he uses the battle rifle and assault rifle terms quite a bit.

I DISAGREE COMPLETELY words mean things. Both assault rifle and battle rifle are recognized terms that specify a specific item, type, or feature different from a randomly selected firearm.

the fact you selected rifles and carbines as what matters is absurd carbine is perhaps the worst most misused term in the firearm world.  It is supposedly a short rifle, but but I have seen PDW, SBR, assault rifles, battle rifles, and sniper rifles all refereed to as carbines.   to put it another way if  the K98 and the m1a1 para are both carbines then the term is too non specific to be useful. infact the K43 is actually the sniper version of the g43. they are the same size & weight.  so the term is useless.

Is the SCAR H a battle rifle or carbine it can easily be both but the scar L can only be a carbine or assault rifle.  so battle rifle is a  useful term.

Larry Vikers is self admitted gun geek

The reason there is no real distinct between battle rifle/rifles/assault rifle is Western Doctrine and TTP, is you will sees no difference in their employment; although we technically issue "assault rifles" they employed the same way so called battle rifles are, we don't train and in fact discourage the usage of automatic fire even during assault phase of an attack

Just what in the hell makes that a gay term?

And then there is always a "PDW".  

I have no dog in this hunt.  I was going to ask the OP what he specifically meant.  Meaning did he mean a rifle you'd take into battle or a "battle rifle" as is defined by the general consensus.  Which of course RON is not a part of.  No problems here.  But I guess I kind of see both side of this here debate.  We use the term because it gets used and thus some of us might know what others are talking about regardless of who made it up.  And  it's just words explaining a type of rifle, whether the military calls it that or not I, I have no clue or not sure it matters.  

But yet one could construe that any rifle that one feels can be taken, or has been taken into battle could be called a battle rifle.  Which would include rifles that some people DON'T include in the term "Battle Rifle".   See, it's all simple.

The two most important.

If there's no difference in how they are deployed, then why would there be a need for a different term?

Only Internet warriors care. In reality it doesn't matter.

Semi auto , at least 30 cal , durable / dirt tolerant and decent sights .  
Much as I love the AR platform . What's cover for it is only concealment
to a battle rifle .