View Full Version : The definition of "assault rifle"
In the past, the definition of an "assault rifle" (in the military context) was a weapon that:
(1) Fired an "intermediate" cartridge (7.62x39, 5.56x45, etc.)
(2) Is fed from a detachable magazine
(3) Is capable of selectable fire - semi or full auto
These days, is this definition still applicable or has it been narrowed or expanded?
"Assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are legal terms that only apply in jurisdictions that make the distinction, and they have their own specific statutory definitions. In the US, the expired federal assault weapon ban definitions are generally used as a model.
Trying to come up with a generalized, invented definition for the term (which is a logically useless term to begin with) outside of those parameters is pointless, unless you're sitting on the front porch with a glass of whisky and a couple of friends with nothing better to do with the balance of the evening.
BrigandTwoFour
12-26-13, 18:51
The problem exists in trying to come up with these minute distinctions to begin with. I used to follow the same logic, hastily berating anyone for using the wrong term, or politically motivated terms. But, in the end, it doesn't matter. It's all a side distraction from what the real issues should be.
If someone can't be trusted with an automatic rifle, then, frankly, they shouldn't be trusted with a shotgun, bolt rifle, handgun, or any other firearm. What we have is a people problem, not a hardware problem.
"Assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are legal terms that only apply in jurisdictions that make the distinction, and they have their own specific statutory definitions. In the US, the expired federal assault weapon ban definitions are generally used as a model.
Trying to come up with a generalized, invented definition for the term (which is a logically useless term to begin with) outside of those parameters is pointless, unless you're sitting on the front porch with a glass of whisky and a couple of friends with nothing better to do with the balance of the evening.
Pretty much except "assault weapon" is more of a military classification and "assault rifle" is a legal term. And once codified into law and enforced by government agencies it became THE accepted term for all real world considerations. So you are absolutely correct, we can call them EBRs, SURs and other terms all we like but we might as well call them pixie sticks for all it matters.
I don't own Assault Rifles regardless of what the anti's say. I own sporting rifles that I use for target shooting, self defense and just collecting. They can take that hyperbole and cram it.
The definition of assault rifle has been so bastardized, it means absolutly nothing anymore but what antis want it to be.
In the past, the definition of an "assault rifle" (in the military context) was a weapon that:
(1) Fired an "intermediate" cartridge (7.62x39, 5.56x45, etc.)
(2) Is fed from a detachable magazine
(3) Is capable of selectable fire - semi or full auto
These days, is this definition still applicable or has it been narrowed or expanded?
Guys I don't think the OP meant this as an anti-2A question, but more of a technical question. OP I think the technical definitions of Assault and Battle rifle still apply but I don't know anyone that uses them in daily life, we usually use the nomenclature of the rifle we are talking about. I have 25 years in the Army and never heard these terms until joining websites like this one.
Guys I don't think the OP meant this as an anti-2A question, but more of a technical question. OP I think the technical definitions of Assault and Battle rifle still apply but I don't know anyone that uses them in daily life, we usually use the nomenclature of the rifle we are talking about. I have 25 years in the Army and never heard these terms until joining websites like this one.
The point is that there is no definition beyond legal definitions. It's a useless and irrelevant distinction. If it was a useful one there would be a better, more universally accepted definition.
ForTehNguyen
12-27-13, 07:35
assault weapon is a political term. The whole term is silly because it implies that theres a weapon not capable of assault.
JBecker 72
12-27-13, 07:41
STG-44 Stutmgewehr literally means storm rifle. Storm can be interpreted as assault.
Just saying. That's the OG.
Generally, I wouldn't refer to an M1 Garand or K98k Mauser as "assault rifles" in the classic sense, but I imagine there are those who would.
The_War_Wagon
12-27-13, 09:24
I used to shoot my kid brother in the backside with my Daisy .177 when we were kids. That would've made the Daisy an, "assault" rifle.
All I've ever done with my AR's is punch paper with them. That would make them, my, "Liberty TEETH." :cool:
Generally, I wouldn't refer to an M1 Garand or K98k Mauser as "assault rifles" in the classic sense, but I imagine there are those who would.
I don't think anyone would classify an M1 or K98 as an assault rifle.
BoringGuy45
12-27-13, 10:15
I always use "military style rifle", "defensive rifle", or "semi-automatic rifle" to describe what the antis call "assault" rifles. I don't go and call it a "modern sporting rifle" because #1: the anti-gunners aren't buying it, #2: Most anti-gun people are not in politics and don't hold the PC view of "supporting the 2nd Amendment's guarantee to let people hunt" but seeking "compromise" by banning "high capacity clips" and "weapons that only the police and military should have..." Most virulent anti-gunners hold the view of a total ban on guns because hunting is a cruel sport, target shooting encourages violent behavior, and self-defense means calling 911. I can't tell you how many times people have said that they wish the police would just go door to door, take every gun and kill anyone who so much as protests.
I'm not going to BS and justify that my AR is just a scary looking deer gun. I have slug guns and bolt guns that fire a lot more powerful rounds than a 5.56. Whenever someone asks why anyone "needs" a "high" capacity magazine or an "assault" rifle, I always say this: "They are great for target shooting or for movement and defensive drills. Also, in the unlikely event of the breakdown of order, such as what happened in the 92 LA Riots, they serve as great deterrents to multiple threats. Just standing by your home holding one is enough to let people know that you are willing to defend yourself, and you have the tools to do it." I've had some people say "Oh, that's inflammatory and threatening..." I say BS. I'm citing a very recent historical example of something actually happened, not a conspiracy or paranoid prepper scenario. It lets people know that there are "legitimate" uses for the scary looking guns beyond shooting up schools and movie theaters, that normal people own them, and that they have been successfully used in worst case scenarios by ordinary civilians.
Doc. Holiday
12-27-13, 10:26
The definition seems to change based off which community you are speaking with. There are so many definitions that it's almost impossible to keep up with all of them.
Well, since "SCAR" is apparently embraced by the Army, there would seem to be at least some official use of the term.
As others have said, it is largely now a legal 'term of art' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology
It is an antiquated technical term from WWII. Since WWI armies were looking for a weapon that could function as an SMG at close range and a rifle short rifle ranges (Germans set this range at 125m). Since the evolution of CQC/CQB/AUC/Battle Drill 6 ect., few really feel the need for SMG functionality. A well made 'sporting rifle' with a standard capacity detachable magazine is more than sufficient for most ground combat.
assault weapon is a political term. The whole term is silly because it implies that theres a weapon not capable of assault.
THE ABOVE Assault weapon is nothing more than a political term these days.
STG-44 Stutmgewehr literally means storm rifle. Storm can be interpreted as assault.
Just saying. That's the OG.
That's Sturmgewehr, and decades of mistranslation is really annoying. Sturm means "assault" being derived from the verb stürmen which means to assault or attack. Sturm can also be translated as a gale, tempest, or squall. There are many words in the German language for "assault" and "attack" (color me shocked, right?) and many words describing bad weather. German isn't like English in that words have singular meanings. They are often times be contextual, and virtually every noun can be changed by adding adjectives in front of it. Adding "Sturm" in front of "Geweher" is going to yield a different meaning than "Sturm" in front of "Wolke" (which means cloud).
THE ABOVE Assault weapon is nothing more than a political term these days.
That's Sturmgewehr, and decades of mistranslation is really annoying. Sturm means "assault" being derived from the verb stürmen which means to assault or attack. Sturm can also be translated as a gale, tempest, or squall. There are many words in the German language for "assault" and "attack" (color me shocked, right?) and many words describing bad weather. German isn't like English in that words have singular meanings. They are often times be contextual, and virtually every noun can be changed by adding adjectives in front of it. Adding "Sturm" in front of "Geweher" is going to yield a different meaning than "Sturm" in front of "Wolke" (which means cloud).
Is it perhaps ironic that _Stormin_ knows a lot about the word stürmen?
I think calling them "sporting rifles" is silly. It's a deadly weapon designed for killing humans. Let's not sugar coat it.
On the other hand, antis need to get over it. The Second Amendment wasn't written for three gun competitions or skeet shooting.
The "charm offensive" that we have been trying to use against antis doesn't really matter. Sporting or not, they want them gone.
It's a deadly weapon designed for killing humans. Let's not sugar coat it.
So are my swords. Yet they probably never will kill anyone despite the years of training I've devoted to them.
Not to dismiss your point about the "charm" campaign being ineffective and pointless. But of all my military firearms which qualify with your statement, I've only got a few handguns which are regularly carried for personal defense and a few long arms which serve a defensive role out of all the guns I own.
The rest are owned for purposes of recreational shooting and / or collecting despite the purposes they may have originally been designed for or their retained capacity for that application.
Is it perhaps ironic that _Stormin_ knows a lot about the word stürmen?
:D
Grew up speaking a lot of German at home as the son of first generation Americans. "Stormin" was a college nickname that has stuck. Merely a delightful coincidence, albeit one that makes me smile.
Sent using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
JBecker 72
12-27-13, 18:07
THE ABOVE Assault weapon is nothing more than a political term these days.
That's Sturmgewehr, and decades of mistranslation is really annoying. Sturm means "assault" being derived from the verb stürmen which means to assault or attack. Sturm can also be translated as a gale, tempest, or squall. There are many words in the German language for "assault" and "attack" (color me shocked, right?) and many words describing bad weather. German isn't like English in that words have singular meanings. They are often times be contextual, and virtually every noun can be changed by adding adjectives in front of it. Adding "Sturm" in front of "Geweher" is going to yield a different meaning than "Sturm" in front of "Wolke" (which means cloud).
Sorry for the misspelling, was on my phone. I need to brush up on my German, it's been a while.
I think calling them "sporting rifles" is silly. It's a deadly weapon designed for killing humans. Let's not sugar coat it.
On the other hand, antis need to get over it. The Second Amendment wasn't written for three gun competitions or skeet shooting.
The "charm offensive" that we have been trying to use against antis doesn't really matter. Sporting or not, they want them gone. My car wasn't really designed to kill people but from what I understand cars can be efficient killers. So would the drunk driver or the car be the cause of the fatal accident.
On any given weekday, you could floor it through a crowd standing at a busy city intersection and kill probably 20 people faster than any firearm ever could.
Completely beside the point, but it's a thought that came to mind.
There's a comedian who recently commented on this very topic... angry guy, east coast, Irish, can't remember his name. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
My car wasn't really designed to kill people but from what I understand cars can be efficient killers. So would the drunk driver or the car be the cause of the fatal accident.
Yes, but your car was designed as a vehicle, not a tool for killing. Just about anything can be used as a weapon, even a No. 2 pencil (through the eye socket), but it wasn't built for such a purpose.
Just like antis make a push against handguns, claiming that "they're only designed for killing people". Yes, this G19 is designed for such a purpose. Get over it.
misanthropist
12-30-13, 21:06
I tend to agree with the people who embrace the lethal functions of their guns.
For one, you could never come up with a name that would please people who don't want you to have an AR. They're not idiots...they're anti-gun. They don't give a damn what you call it. It's got a shoulder thing that goes up. They want to take it away.
For another, even if you could somehow convince them that ARs and 1911s were designed to massage overexerted bunnies at Mother Teresa's petting zoo, you're still getting sucked into the black hole of "nobody needs anything to kill anybody else". How do you justify filling your CQB Elite with 230 grain HST? Are you seriously going to try to take the position that HST was just designed to disrupt the maximum amount of gelatin in the 12-16 inch range, and everything else it does is coincidental and irrelevant to your needs?
I buy weapons. I buy weapons I know full well are designed to kill people. I hope to never have to hurt or kill anyone with them but I want the ability to shut someone down pronto if they present a credible, lethal threat to me or my family. Do I want a killing machine? Damn right I do. The killing itself is irrelevant but I want immediate cessation of the threat and practically speaking, that means using equipment that kills efficiently. That's why I shoot Glocks, 1911s, ARs and VZs. Not Hammerlis, not Anschutzes. Not guns meant for paper. Not even guns meant for deer. Guns designed for the military to shoot people and make them die.
I'm sorry that that's such an ugly reality and I assure everyone that I would very much prefer to live in a world in which there was never a need for any of this gear. But I don't live in that world. I live in this one, and so does my family, and I want access to assault rifles and other weapons in order to make sure that if anyone tries to force us out of this world and into the next ahead of schedule, I can stop that from happening in the shortest amount of time possible.
I think calling them "sporting rifles" is silly. It's a deadly weapon designed for killing humans. Let's not sugar coat it.Sort of, but not precisely. A head axe, guillotine, electric chair, and gas chamber are made for killing humans and exactly no other purpose other than making humans dead.
A modern rifle is designed for what Mikhail Kalashnikov designed his for: enabling its user to have the ability to survive and prevail when faced with conflict with multiple other humans who are trying to make its user dead. It's not necessarily for people on the blasting end to die as for the one on the wooden or plastic end to live. Kalashnikov, and probably Schmeisser as well, saw piles and piles of his buddies dead because they were in a situation they didn't wanna be in but life put them in the middle of bad historical events. Before he came up with his rifle, if another country didn't like yours, or someone got elected who shouldn't or born to a ruling family with the inclination to not like you or your religion or your language or skin color, you were either summarily shot or hanged on the spot or sent off to stand in a line with a rifle that only preserved your life if and only if you had lots of other buddies and other other side had fewer than you did, and even the latter only guaranteed a lifespan somewhere between a few days and maybe a few minutes. If you lived anywhere else other than North America after 1900 and ANY number of any bad combinations of things happened, your life was basically worth nothing and you had nothing to say about it. The modern rifle changed that somewhat. Authorities and criminals still committed mass murder, sure, and even occasionally using them, but the common man CAN have a vastly greater than historical average chance of surviving and fighting back. That is what a modern rifle is. It is not a guillotine.
War is a bad historical event. Floods, famines, and riots are bad historical events. I own the intermediate powered gas operated rifles I own because I know that my lifespan may fall in one of those bad historical event times. My wife, myself, and our future family will not want to be dead in a ditch or driven off our property into poverty, starvation, and despair for lack of sufficient ability to tell the offending forces HELL NO in sufficiently strong measure as to make them reverse course and cease to put forth that threat.
The "charm offensive" that we have been trying to use against antis doesn't really matter. Sporting or not, they want them gone.The only way to make them stop is to make their effort gone.
SeriousStudent
12-30-13, 22:00
On any given weekday, you could floor it through a crowd standing at a busy city intersection and kill probably 20 people faster than any firearm ever could.
Completely beside the point, but it's a thought that came to mind.
There's a comedian who recently commented on this very topic... angry guy, east coast, Irish, can't remember his name. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Dennis Leary.
The problem with the "assault rifle" terminology is that for years those in the industry recognized that in order to be a true assault rifle it must have the ability to fire in burst or full auto. At least that is how I was taught. The terminology was hijacked by politicians who needed a way to paralyze the masses in fear.
A civilian AR, AK, FAL, etc.... in my mind is first and foremost a semi-auto rifle. That doesn't mean it can't be used to shoot people. At the end of the day it is nothing more than a civilian counterpart to a military weapon.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.