What is an assault rifle?
- Thread starter gunloony
- Start date
They already have. I'll have to do some digging, but around 2003, a guy barricaded himself in his house and threatened police with a .50 muzzleloader.
"OMG! .50 Caliber Assault Rifle!" was the response from the Brady Campaign at first.
Police simply let the guy take one shot, and knowing they'd have plenty of time, stormed the house.
I'm not entirely sure about this but I believe the only rifle ever officially termed "assault rifle" was the original Stg44, originally MP44, which I guess wasn't cool enough. Nur jodeln ist cool.
Now I'm wondering what the other assaut rifle the Germans (the paratrooper's rifle) was called.
Technically, if fantastically, could anything with a bayonet lug be an assault weapon? Would an old army shotgun with a bayonet lug count? Would one of those CZ bayonets that slips onto the accessory rail of a CZ pistol make it an assault pistol? Would an Apache knuckleduster be an assault revolver? Some single shot pistols were made with attached Bowie knives. What are they?
Is a .45 caliber Liberator pistol a "throwdown?"
Now I'm wondering what the other assaut rifle the Germans (the paratrooper's rifle) was called.
Technically, if fantastically, could anything with a bayonet lug be an assault weapon? Would an old army shotgun with a bayonet lug count? Would one of those CZ bayonets that slips onto the accessory rail of a CZ pistol make it an assault pistol? Would an Apache knuckleduster be an assault revolver? Some single shot pistols were made with attached Bowie knives. What are they?
Is a .45 caliber Liberator pistol a "throwdown?"
Uncle Billy
New member
I have an original and a replica of the Charleville musket, a .69 caliber smooth bore flintlock made in France in the mid-1700s, some of which France supplied to our Revolutionary forces. It's 5 feet long and can be fitted with a triangular bayonet that's 18" long. It's not an accurate firearm as much as it's a 6'6" pike or spear, meant for close hand-to-hand combat. Thus I think it's clearly an "assault" weapon because its primary use in combat was to assault the enemy in close-quarter fighting.
Just be glad the antis are all in a dither about "assault" weapons. If mass insanity was done with "hunting" rifles or "target" rifles, we'd have a bigger public relations problem than we already have.
Just be glad the antis are all in a dither about "assault" weapons. If mass insanity was done with "hunting" rifles or "target" rifles, we'd have a bigger public relations problem than we already have.
I heard one of the bubbleheads reporting in the early hours that the shooter had a "17 gauge" shotgun. The NYPD police commish repeatedly made incorrect references to the types of handguns he carried even after the Aurora chiefs press conference where he gave very specific identities of the weapons.
Events like this dramatically illuminate the problem with a 24 hour news cycle. There isn't 24 hours worth of hard or good information and they still have to saturate the viewers. This inevitably contributes to lax fact-checking and outright ignorant mistakes.
Assault weapon just rolls off the tongue so easily and carries just the right balance of shock and awe.
Events like this dramatically illuminate the problem with a 24 hour news cycle. There isn't 24 hours worth of hard or good information and they still have to saturate the viewers. This inevitably contributes to lax fact-checking and outright ignorant mistakes.
Assault weapon just rolls off the tongue so easily and carries just the right balance of shock and awe.
Since the MP/STG 44 was the concept upon which future assault rifles were based, its characteristics are the basis for the definition of "assault rifle".
Select fire; both semi- and full-auto operation.
REDUCED-power cartridge (if it is "high caliber" [whatever the h*ll that means] or "high powered", it's not an assault rifle).
In more recent times, most all military rifles have come to have black plastic furniture, with a separate pistol grip, and that appearance is thought by some to actually be the most important characteristic, though clearly, based on the definition, the M2 Carbine is an assault rifle even though it's not black, has no plastic, and is of coventional, that is, 19th Century, metal and wood configuration.
Today, any number of rifles that do not conform to the definition are termed "assault weapons" precisely because they are not assault rifles; the latter has a specific definition, while the former could literally mean any gun.
Select fire; both semi- and full-auto operation.
REDUCED-power cartridge (if it is "high caliber" [whatever the h*ll that means] or "high powered", it's not an assault rifle).
In more recent times, most all military rifles have come to have black plastic furniture, with a separate pistol grip, and that appearance is thought by some to actually be the most important characteristic, though clearly, based on the definition, the M2 Carbine is an assault rifle even though it's not black, has no plastic, and is of coventional, that is, 19th Century, metal and wood configuration.
Today, any number of rifles that do not conform to the definition are termed "assault weapons" precisely because they are not assault rifles; the latter has a specific definition, while the former could literally mean any gun.
I think you are correct in the most modern "assault rifles" have their origin in the Stg44 but only in an inspirational sense. A couple of designs could be said to be deritivies but most others owe nothing from a design standpoint.
I take issue with other comments.
One German (naturally) weapon, a rifle, preceded it, the FG 42, which had most of the features thought to be characteristic of an assault rifle, only it used a full grown 8mm rifle cartridge. It was select fire. It was not used in the numbers the other rifle was, which in fact is still in service in small numbers in places. At least, they're still be captured. Anyhow, the FG 42 had a pistol grip, high-cap magazine, some plastic furniture (is that really required?), even a bayonet for effect. It was actually used in combat. How controllable it was on full auto is unimportant. That isn't in the definition, is it?
And by the way, who wrote this definition? Same guy that gave us "battle rifle?"
While I agree the Stg44 probably deserves credit for the concept rather than the FG 42, I'd say the widespread distribution of the AK-47 made a bigger impact. It wasn't until 20 years after WWII that anything else appeared that could be called an assault rifle and another 20 years before other countries began replacing their "battle rifles" with "assault rifles."
I take issue with other comments.
One German (naturally) weapon, a rifle, preceded it, the FG 42, which had most of the features thought to be characteristic of an assault rifle, only it used a full grown 8mm rifle cartridge. It was select fire. It was not used in the numbers the other rifle was, which in fact is still in service in small numbers in places. At least, they're still be captured. Anyhow, the FG 42 had a pistol grip, high-cap magazine, some plastic furniture (is that really required?), even a bayonet for effect. It was actually used in combat. How controllable it was on full auto is unimportant. That isn't in the definition, is it?
And by the way, who wrote this definition? Same guy that gave us "battle rifle?"
While I agree the Stg44 probably deserves credit for the concept rather than the FG 42, I'd say the widespread distribution of the AK-47 made a bigger impact. It wasn't until 20 years after WWII that anything else appeared that could be called an assault rifle and another 20 years before other countries began replacing their "battle rifles" with "assault rifles."
I'm far from expert on the topic, but I recall reading that the 'assault' terminology was associated with the development of 'assault tactics' (also called infiltration tactics) by the Germans in WWI. Wikipedia has an entry about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper
The new tactics emphasized suppressive fire, using it to move forward, as opposed to the old tactics of accurate long-range rifle fire. Hence the eventual transition from full power rifle cartridges to cartridges with less power but more rounds.
What if they had decided to call them 'infiltration rifles' instead? I don't think it would have had quite the same impact for gun control advocates as 'assault.' Funny how a quirk of language can have such an big effect on debate. Same facts, different language, different debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper
The new tactics emphasized suppressive fire, using it to move forward, as opposed to the old tactics of accurate long-range rifle fire. Hence the eventual transition from full power rifle cartridges to cartridges with less power but more rounds.
What if they had decided to call them 'infiltration rifles' instead? I don't think it would have had quite the same impact for gun control advocates as 'assault.' Funny how a quirk of language can have such an big effect on debate. Same facts, different language, different debate.
IMO the problem is in no way due to the definition of "assault Rifle" its with the media use of the term. They should be sued over incorrectly using the term and spreading fear among there listeners/viewers.
Wikipedia correctly classifies and "assault rifle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
If I watched ABC or other network and then went and did some research on the term I would find the correct definition. How many people think that you can go into any gun store and buy an assault weapon due to this misinformation?
Wikipedia correctly classifies and "assault rifle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
If I watched ABC or other network and then went and did some research on the term I would find the correct definition. How many people think that you can go into any gun store and buy an assault weapon due to this misinformation?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
You have to sue on the basis of damages done to you. Spreading fear isnt' going to work. Spreading fear is covered by the rights to free speech. You can't sue for stupid unless you can show damages as defined by law.
Sadly, as I said before, the gun world's best strategy is to clearly emphasize that civilians cannot easily buy full auto versions of the guns.
As a thought exercise, folks want the NFA rules lifted. So if the 'Joker' had a full auto M-16 version - then would that make a difference in the gun debate. Think about that? What would you say?
Trying to make the gun look less dangerous by saying it is not an assault rifle isn't going to cut it. You have to argue as to why we have the right to own this type of gun. I heard antigun folks clearly saying that it was a semi version of a military gun. Think that distinction makes folks then say - why it's less deadly in a significant fashion.
Trying to minimize the effectiveness of the gun by the name argument doesn't make sense to me and I think has no impact. I argue that we have a right to effective guns.
Saying it isn't full auto does but what do you say when then you are on record of wanting such to be available? Double edged sword.
Sadly, as I said before, the gun world's best strategy is to clearly emphasize that civilians cannot easily buy full auto versions of the guns.
As a thought exercise, folks want the NFA rules lifted. So if the 'Joker' had a full auto M-16 version - then would that make a difference in the gun debate. Think about that? What would you say?
Trying to make the gun look less dangerous by saying it is not an assault rifle isn't going to cut it. You have to argue as to why we have the right to own this type of gun. I heard antigun folks clearly saying that it was a semi version of a military gun. Think that distinction makes folks then say - why it's less deadly in a significant fashion.
Trying to minimize the effectiveness of the gun by the name argument doesn't make sense to me and I think has no impact. I argue that we have a right to effective guns.
Saying it isn't full auto does but what do you say when then you are on record of wanting such to be available? Double edged sword.
Whether or not a gun is full auto or semi-auto is almost stretching a point when there's a high capacity magazine attached (again, how well it works is irrelevant). Try justifying a 50 or 100 round magazine. They are available. And if you've ever owned an AR-15 or similiar weapon, you know what the cyclic rate is. In a word, fast. You can empty the magazine as fast as you can pull the trigger. If that isn't fast enough, well, there are other attachments available.
It's a tough sell. You have your effective guns, all right.
I'm waiting for someone to say, "if he'd had a real gun."
By the way, the only way you can hold anyone to a definition of an assault weapon is if it's legally defined. What Wikipedia says may be more or less correct but it isn't legally binding. Unfortunately, you're late in the game. There have already been legal definitions of what it is. You can still argue whether or not it's correct or fair but it's already happened.
It's a tough sell. You have your effective guns, all right.
I'm waiting for someone to say, "if he'd had a real gun."
By the way, the only way you can hold anyone to a definition of an assault weapon is if it's legally defined. What Wikipedia says may be more or less correct but it isn't legally binding. Unfortunately, you're late in the game. There have already been legal definitions of what it is. You can still argue whether or not it's correct or fair but it's already happened.
It's a term used by liberals to implicate that the rifle itself is evil, not the person (who even if they happen to be evil presently can be changed after serving as little as 8 years of a life sentence).
It is worth noting "assualt rifle" is to be used for semi autos only
If the bad guy uses his granfathers bolt action deer rifle, the correct term is "sniper rifle".
Why do we feed the fire?
It is my understanding that "assault" is by definition, a physical attack. Therefore, an assault weapon is something of an oxymoron or perhaps personification. I suggest that assault in the case of weaponry is about intent not a type of tool. At one time clubs and rocks were assault weapons as were muskets and the like. Am I to understand an AWB will ban these types of items as well? If so, I have some brick pavers in my front yard that will have to be disposed of, to say nothing of all the sticks lying around. Of course this is ridiculous, which is my point.
We perpetuate the problem by using the language that ill informed individuals use to try and make a point, no matter how invalid. Wouldn't we serve our own cause better by interrupting this process and simply refusing to use such language?
I would love to see, for once, an interviewee respond to a question about assault rifles by saying "I have no idea what an assault weapon is. Perhaps you should better understand this topic before you try and report on it."
Just my .02...
Hope ya'll have a great, safe day.
It is my understanding that "assault" is by definition, a physical attack. Therefore, an assault weapon is something of an oxymoron or perhaps personification. I suggest that assault in the case of weaponry is about intent not a type of tool. At one time clubs and rocks were assault weapons as were muskets and the like. Am I to understand an AWB will ban these types of items as well? If so, I have some brick pavers in my front yard that will have to be disposed of, to say nothing of all the sticks lying around. Of course this is ridiculous, which is my point.
We perpetuate the problem by using the language that ill informed individuals use to try and make a point, no matter how invalid. Wouldn't we serve our own cause better by interrupting this process and simply refusing to use such language?
I would love to see, for once, an interviewee respond to a question about assault rifles by saying "I have no idea what an assault weapon is. Perhaps you should better understand this topic before you try and report on it."
Just my .02...
Hope ya'll have a great, safe day.
Basically, what you all are trying to do is talk your way out of the fact that it is easy to go out and buy a rifle with which it is possible to fire a lot of rounds pretty quickly. Or a pistol. And that some people use them to kill a few people now and then. and that making them harder to get won't make any difference.
We are open to suggestions as to what would make a difference. Don't be vague. It doesn't have to be easy. Everything is harder than it seems. It is possible to do more than you think. Even alone.
We are open to suggestions as to what would make a difference. Don't be vague. It doesn't have to be easy. Everything is harder than it seems. It is possible to do more than you think. Even alone.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I would not fool around. I would say that we have the right to own such military derivative guns because they are weapons that we use for self-defense and the defense against tyranny. If you want to say we have the right to own assault weapons - yes we do.
I don't buy it's not dangerous, it's a tool, it's for sports evasions of their core purpose.
I don't buy it's not dangerous, it's a tool, it's for sports evasions of their core purpose.
Frankly the whole "it's not an Assault Rifle!" thing is one of my pet peeves. I think that by not owning the term Assault Rifle it makes gun owners look like they are deliberately obfuscating definitions thereby admitting some measure of guilt or unpleasantness about the Arm.
A "Battle Rifle" is a Battle Rifle regardless of full auto capability. The term primarily refers to cartridge size and original intended useage. Similarly, Assault Rifle conveys an idea of cartridge size and original usage. Why the definition of Assault Rifle supposedly requires full auto capability is suspect. I have still yet to see some original sourced material that stipulates that full auto is a requirement for the term.
At best it is still grammatically and semantically bad business along the lines of "white people" vis a vis "african americans"; the rules for classifying shift from one term to the other and neither term straightforwardly explains the group it purports to name.
The idea that a rifle which shares 99.5% parts commonality with a full auto analogue is somehow a different rifle is ridiculous and the fact that almost no one even uses most of the silly terms created for semi-auto equivalents ("sporter", etc.) is telling.
I don't think running away from the term does gun owners any favors. How about saying: Yes, it's an Assault Rifle. Yes, it's Constitutional. Now shove off!
A "Battle Rifle" is a Battle Rifle regardless of full auto capability. The term primarily refers to cartridge size and original intended useage. Similarly, Assault Rifle conveys an idea of cartridge size and original usage. Why the definition of Assault Rifle supposedly requires full auto capability is suspect. I have still yet to see some original sourced material that stipulates that full auto is a requirement for the term.
At best it is still grammatically and semantically bad business along the lines of "white people" vis a vis "african americans"; the rules for classifying shift from one term to the other and neither term straightforwardly explains the group it purports to name.
The idea that a rifle which shares 99.5% parts commonality with a full auto analogue is somehow a different rifle is ridiculous and the fact that almost no one even uses most of the silly terms created for semi-auto equivalents ("sporter", etc.) is telling.
I don't think running away from the term does gun owners any favors. How about saying: Yes, it's an Assault Rifle. Yes, it's Constitutional. Now shove off!