What is an assault rifle?

Different schools of thought...and no concrete standard..

having read through the thread, the replies show two different schools of thought. One defining an object on its features/intended usage, and the other defining the same object solely by its useage.

Any rifle used to assault someone is considered by some to be an assault rifle. Personally, while I suppose it is grammatically correct, I don't think its an accurate use of the language. Using this standard we would also be correct saying assault hammers, assault clubs, assault rocks, assault knives, etc. I think using the term this way simply adds confustion to an already misunderstood situation.

one of the reasons we have so much confusion is that there is no standardized, recognized authority defining the terms. Assault weapon was defined in law in 1994, but refers only to semi automatics with certain combinations of essentially cosmetic features.

Assault rifle can into use in shooting circles and among certain groups in the military following the discovery of the German Sturmgewehr.

Hitler named the MP44 the Sturmgewehr. Sturm translated in the military sense, to assault (as in assaulting an objective) or storm (as in storming a hill, etc). The US shooting community (both in and out of the military) adopted the term "assault rifle" to describe guns in the same class as the Sturmgewehr. The essential features were the intermediate power cartridge and the select fire capability.
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.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't cite any sourced material, having done no research to find any, all I can say was that as far as I know, there was no "official" definition of assault rifle, for the majority of the time since the end of WWII, it was just an informal definition, agreed to by the majority of informed users. And, yes, there was discussion and dissention by many people, particuilarly at first, and recently.

Under US law, there is no defintion of "assault rifle". The select fire military firearms we refer to as assault rifles are, under legal defintion, machine guns.
And, as such, have been heavily regulated and restriced since 1934.

Assault Weapon does have a legal defintion, and as previously noted, refers to SEMI AUTO firearms. Do not confuse the two.
 
Here's another legal distinction, not that it really enters into the matter:

If you take a swing at someone, that's an assault. If you hit them, that's battery.

You are correct in that "assault weapon" (which I assume includes rifles) was legally defined. Even though the ban was lifted (or dropped), the definition stands, does it not?
 
If we can't agree on the proper terminology how can we expect the general populace to understand. A civilian version of an M-16, or a semi-automatic AR-15 is simply NOT an assault rifle. Last I checked to legally buy and transfer an assault rifle will cost you about 16 grand. Calling it such does not make it so whether it be someone on this forum or a member of the media. There are enough ignorant folks using improper terminology fanning the flames without any help from us. A lot of military small arms carry their proper designation in the popular name that they possess. The B.A.R. for instance. It is correctly named. Its proper designation is it's an "automatic rifle" pure and simple. Doesn't sound too sexy does it? But its price sure is: Think a good example of one runs in the upper 20's:eek:......So guys I know it might sound trivial but we should strive to use the correct terminology. We need to present a united front and know of what we speak as our future 2A rights could very well depend on it. Let us keep this in mind when we are bantering around these hot button phrases that tend scare the sheeple.
 
I honestly don't understand the debate.

"Assault rifle" has worked its way into the lexicon -- and may be the correct term anyway, as you can see from some of the above posts.

But, no matter. I also don't care when folks call, for instance, a .308 a "hunting rifle." It has other uses too, as we all know.

I mean, what does anyone expect when a certain segment just loves, loves, loves the military styling of weapons? I truly doubt anyone is going to start calling them "military-looking high-capacity semi-automatic target-shooting tools."
 
Blue Train:

Then I should have said I don't understand the problem.

It's the word that is used and will continue to be used for rifles with that oh-so-attractive military styling.
 
I believe the only debate is between the politicians, they deemed it as such just by the cosmetic appearance alone, not buy functionality. Most of us here look and the functionality of things cool factors come into play here and there. For congress functionality means nothing appearance means everything.
 
Blue Train it is true that the will and would Ban all weapons if they had the chance but in terms of defining assault rifle to a politician its they know very little of anything about functionality to them its all cosmetic they could careless about functions if it looks like military it needs to be banned. Now does that mean that they would stop at just them. No I am just saying that they could care less about the function of certain items such as the bayonet lug flash hider or any of the other items that they term as listed. To them it just looks like it is military and that is bad in their opinion. Just saying.
 
What did Obama say the other day? Something to the effect that this country has a proud heritage of hunting and shooting. But that he believes that most people along with him think that AK-47s should be in the hands of soldiers on the battlefield and not in the hands of citizens on the streets of this country. Now he knows damn good and well that there are an EXTREMELY limited number of legally owned and registered AK-47s in this country. They know this because they closed the registry years ago and drove the price out of reach for most people. This was done by design.
 
AR-15

'AR'

Assault Rifle

I actually say an anti-gunner put forth the above reasoning recently. Yes, they are that uninformed.
 
I just can't figure it out. :rolleyes:

attachment.php



A trunk load of Archangel add-ons

attachment.php



Tactical Crossman AIr Rifle

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Ruger .22 with Archangel stock.jpg
    Ruger .22 with Archangel stock.jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 63
  • Tactical Crossman Air Rifle.jpg
    Tactical Crossman Air Rifle.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 62
  • .22 Rifles Civ vs Mil Dress.jpg
    .22 Rifles Civ vs Mil Dress.jpg
    22.3 KB · Views: 55
Last edited:
The latest iterations of weapons bans from folks who paid attention to the failure of the AWB would be to ban and/or confiscate all semiauto weapons. All shotguns, except O/Us would go. Some bolt action rifles would be allowed.

You may remember the fake gun rights organization that proposed such to get the 'good' gun owners to abandon the NRA.

Wood gun - good, black gun - bad. They don't understand the idea that the wood gun is efficacious for the most part. If they do, they want to ban that.

Let's be real. Yes, one could propose a ban on 100 round mags. Seems reasonable. But that's just a foot in the door.
 
While you're at it, you might start thinking of reasons why you want to switch that plain old hardwood stock on a Ruger .22 for all that other stuff. Not why you need it, just why you want it. You can tell me first if you want.
 
if i recall correctly the AR-15 * came first and was originally a civilian semi-auto rifle and was never patterned after any military rifle, the military liked the AR-15 and adopted it then made modifications, i.e., ability to fire full auto, redesignating it as the M16, thus making it an "Assault Rifle".

* i do have a little first hand knowledge, in April 1962, i met Gene Stoner, and 5 of his companions, shook his hand and had about 3 hours of conversation and shooting his new rifle at the former Sorrento Valley Gun Club, San Diego Calif.
 
Strictly speaking, it was patterned after the AR-10, which was produced overseas for military use. And likewise, any weapons not (yet) adopted by or used by any army (or air force) is a civilian weapon.
 
The word (Assault Weapon) is simply a "moniker" typically associated with any rifle that resembles a gun of war. I know that people hate to accept that but its cultural and beyond our control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top