Is "used in anger" a Britishism for something?

On a different board, someone referred to a computer language that had achieved popularity beyond the academic world as "used in anger", the way a shot fired in combat instead of on the practice range is said to be "fired in anger". A Google search returned only people wondering, effectively, wtf?

Is this an actual expression or I am being put on?

EDIT

I think I didn't make myself clear: I've heard "used in anger" in plenty of cases where anger seemed more or less appropriate -- weapons, armies, that kind of things. Does anyone have a cite where the phrase has become detached from any aggressive context?

Solution 1:

Thanks for MT_head's etymology - it is generally used in British English to mean used for its intended purpose, or used for real rather than in tests.

It's not necessarily used in a military context.

Solution 2:

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I'm surprised to see that all existing citations have at the very least overtones of conflict / confrontation.

I didn't have any problem finding plenty of instances like this one, where it simply means in earnest, for real. Just search for used in anger in NGram, and skip every reference followed by management.

I won't bother adding links for more than one, but trust me it's not difficult to meet OP's request and cite usages "detached from any aggressive context".

Solution 3:

Simply put: shots "fired in anger" are distinct from those fired in practice. If we say that something has never been used in anger, we mean, by implication, that it has never seen the fullness of the use for which it was intended, and may therefore be assumed to be untested, or at least untried in the heat of battle. It's a common metaphor in widespread use. I have no reason to believe it is solely British.

EDIT (In response to the questioner's edit.): It's very normal for a metaphor to be used without further explanation, and this is no exception. It's very common to see the phrase used in non-violent contexts.

Solution 4:

From The life, adventures, and opinions of Col. George Hanger: Written by himself, (1801 - the cited passage was written in 1798):

As there are many of our generals, and by far the greatest number of field officers, who never saw a shot fired in anger in their lives; both for the satisfaction of the common soldier, and for the honour and interest of my country, I propose that every general and field officer, who has not seen active service before they be permitted to take upon them the command of a brigade or regiment, shall be commanded to walk backwards and forwards for one quarter of an hour behind a canvas screen, about eight feet high, placed in front of a battalion of infantry, the men firing all the time as quick as possible at the cloth.

Colonel Hanger was a British officer during the American Revolution (or "the recent unpleasantness", as I suppose they call it back in dear old Blighty), but this is definitely not just a British expression; I've been hearing and using it for most of my life, usually ironically.

Solution 5:

The references to weapons being "used in anger" may well have been the initial (that is, original) usage of the phrase. However, use of this phrase in common parlance has to some extent watered down the rather violent implications. Any item or facility which is being "used in anger" is being utilized to its fullest extent, or employing all its intended features.