Why is an AR-15 not an assault/military rifle?

[Theohazard]

SA I don't know where you got that definition from but I will tell you, there are plenty of liberal interpretations of the term assualt rifle that do not conform those criteria. A look at many of the gun laws and banned rifles will confirm that.

SocialAnarchist is correct: That's the technical definition of "assault rifle". The term "assault rifle" comes from the German "Sturmgewehr". That's the name they gave their Stg-44, which is widely considered to be the world's first assault rifle. Just because some people abuse the term and use it to describe semi-auto rifles, that doesn't mean his definition is incorrect.

 

[RickB]

The term "assault weapon" was invented by an ad man, specifically for a gun control campaign. You won't find it in military weapons manuals, or other "gun" documents or writing, prior to the early 1990s.
The term was intended to frighten people, just as calling a Pit Bull or German Shepherd an "attack dog", might.
Assault Weapon is really pretty brilliant, since once you have established "assault" as the key, negative word, you can follow it with any other word, and get another negative response. "Assault Pistol", "Assault Shotgun", "Assault Hand Guard", "Assault Pistol Grip", etc.
Pavlov's ghost must be smiling.

 

[Theohazard]

The term "assault weapon" was invented by an ad man, specifically for a gun control campaign. You won't find it in military weapons manuals, or other "gun" documents or writing, prior to the early 1990s.

Yes, but the OP is talking about the term "assault rifle", which is a correct technical term; it was coined when assault rifles were invented at the end of WWII and has been used ever since. The US Army has even used it as a technical term; here's a page from a 1970 Army field manual:

http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax//fstcp67.jpg

 

[tipoc]

The term "assault weapon" was already in widespread use by the 1980s. The term lumped together automatic rifles and carbines, machine guns and machine pistols. The Uzi, the AK, M16, Skorpion, etc. These were all capable of fully automatic fire and/or three round bursts. Any precise definition of what was included in the term was left up to the listener. Other than military grade weapons capable of a lot of damage it never got much more precise.

The term was a political one rather than attempt at a precise definition of firearm type. It was not only a liberal term, conservatives used it as well. But like the term "gun violence" it is a loaded term.

Obama’s push for an assault-weapon’s ban hearkens to the original ban passed in 1994 that expired in 2004. At the time of that ban’s passage, Reagan -- who took office in 1981-- supported it. In a joint letter to The Boston Globe with Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, the former presidents wrote, "While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."

Eight years before this letter in the newspaper supporting the assault-weapons ban, Reagan, who was then president, signed into law the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which was supported by gun rights advocates. In addition to providing protections for gun owners, the act also banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

It's important that firearms enthusiasts know the actual difference between a battle rifle, an assault rile or carbine, and a machine gun. Between fully auto and semiauto.

But don't expect that you can explain away all the confusion. Ya have to be patient in explaining that a revolver isn't an "assault weapon" because someone used one to rob your grandma and assault her.

tipoc

 

[44 AMP]

Assault RIFLE

Somewhere in the early part of WW II, when the Nazis were winning, Hitler gave an order not to waste resources on new rifle development. Work on future machineguns and submachine guns was allowed, even encouraged, but new rifles weren't "needed".

Some designers, however, did not follow that order. They worked on new rifle designs and concepts, but disguised their work by calling them MP's (MaschinPistolen -the German term for submachine guns - Machine Pistols)

By 43 they had come up with a magazine fed, selective fire rifle using a cartridge that was smaller than the standard 8mm rifle round (7.92x57mm), but larger and more powerful than the standard pistol round (9mm Parabellum). Some MP43s and MP 44s were sent to the Eastern Front for testing.

At a conference where Hitler was speaking with some East Front veterans, he asked them what they needed. Someone said "we want more of the new rifles!".

"WHAT NEW RIFLES???!!!!"
When it was explained to him, Hitler was, at first, furious that his order had been flouted. When the new rifle was demonstrated for him, he changed his mind, and became very enthusiastic. "That's what I want! That's what I need!" He named the new rifle the STURMGEWEHR.

Sturmgewehr is German for "Assault Rifle". It can also be translated as "Storm Rifle". This uses assault or storm in the military context, assaulting or storming an objective.

After WWII, the term "assault rifle" came into common use in the shooting community (in and out of the military). Based on the German Sturmgewehr, to be an assault rifle, it had to (generally) conform to those characteristics.

Magazine fed. SELECTIVE FIRE. Uses an "intermediate" power cartridge. It could have other things (straight line stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.,) but without those three KEY things it was not an "assault rifle". It was something else.

An AR15 is not an assault rifle, because it is NOT selective fire. A G3 (select fire HK 91) is not an assault rifle, because it does not fire an intermediate power cartridge (full power 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win).

The main point of confusion is the English (primarily American) common use of the word "assault". An assault rifle is not (properly) any rifle used in an assault (though many people seem to think otherwise), it is a rifle that meets a certain set of physical characteristics, which make it a good weapon for a military assault.

The US military does not use the term "assault rifle" describing any of OUR weapons. US LAW does not use the term "assault rifle", as they are legally machine guns.

When the anti-gun bigots were whipping up hysteria about them, because of some nutcases using semi automatic rifles that looked like assault rifles in mass shootings, they cried "He used an Assault Rifle!!!!!"

We said, "No, its just a rifle. Semi Auto, NOT an assault rifle!"
They came back with "He used a semiautomatic assault rifle!!!!!!"
And they were sublimely convinced of the rectitude of their position. Even though we explained it, over and over...

However, "Semiautomatic Assault Rifle" is a mouthful to say, and didn't make for the "best" possible sound bites, so they invented a new term "Assault Weapon".

And, they defined it. They got it passed into law, and so their definition became the legal definition. And their definition was SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles, pistols and shotgun were "Assault Weapons" if they had certain features, which BTW are all cosmetic to the function of the gun. Bayonet lugs, Flash Hiders/Flash suppressors, forward handgrips, protruding pistol grips, folding stocks, etc. Also, they listed a large number of specific firearms by name/model number as "assault weapons" whether they had all, or even any of the listed features.

NOT ONE SINGLE ASSAULT RIFLE is covered under these laws, they apply ONLY to semi automatic firearms.

The similarity in terms is intentional, to further confusion about these things, which is beneficial to the lies that the anti gun bigots promote.

 

[Theohazard]

The term "assault weapon" was already in widespread use by the 1980s. The term lumped together automatic rifles and carbines, machine guns and machine pistols. The Uzi, the AK, M16, Skorpion, etc. These were all capable of fully automatic fire and/or three round bursts.

Not exactly. The term "assault weapon" has traditionally been used to refer to semi-auto rifles that only look like fully-automatic weapons. The gun control movement intentionally tried to fool people into thinking that an "assault weapons" ban would ban machine guns, when all it did was ban cosmetic features that made certain guns look like machine guns.

 

[tipoc]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that Theo. "Assault weapons" was not invented as part of a conspiracy nor was it strictly used by liberals or anti-gunners as I showed.

It is a term that is imprecise and like a lot of terms used in politics is useful because it is imprecise. It has different meanings to whoever is listening, as this discussion shows The more precise it gets the less useful it is to politicians.

tipoc

 

[lcpiper]

dakota.potts

Umm, I got tired of reading the Assault Weapon - Assault Rifle dialog, I may have missed this in a post somewhere so if it has been addressed already forgive me.

You have an incorrect understanding of Military Weapons training. Although it is true that during "Marksmanship Training" soldiers are not normally allowed to fire in an firing mode other then Semi-Automatic, in Combat Training and exercises they are trained to use fire modes appropriate to their situation. For instance, when I was going through MOUT Training with our M16A2s, (Semi-Auto and 3-round Burst capable), we fired in Burst Fire almost all the time.

That being said, US Special Forces are very well trained and those guys are able to advance and fire extremely accurately and tend to use Semi-Automatic fire to great effect and with great efficiency.

So in short, your post is based on a false concept. Those selector levers are there for a reason and they get used for good reason.

 

[lcpiper]

And to the guy who posted that the M249 SAW and the M240 are assault rifles, yea that's wrong too. They are not rifles at all, they are light machine guns. You can fire an M-2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun in single shot but that doesn't make it a rifle. They are not rifles and they are not Assault Rifles either.

 

[Theohazard]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that Theo.

No, I'm not wrong at all. Regardless of where the term "assault weapon" originated, it has overwhelmingly been used to describe semi-auto rifles that look like military rifles. Here's the famous internal memo from anti-gun guru Josh Sugarmann:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

 

[Theohazard]

And to the guy who posted that the M249 SAW and the M240 are assault rifles, yea that's wrong too. They are not rifles at all, they are light machine guns.

The M240 is not a light machine gun. It's a medium machine gun.

 

[Theohazard]

So in short, your post is based on a false concept. Those selector levers are there for a reason and they get used for good reason.

But he's right that semi-auto is used a vast majority of the time. Pretty much the only time you're going to put your rifle on "burst" or "auto" is in CQB or if you need to provide suppressive fire.

 

[44 AMP]

The M240 is not a light machine gun. It's a medium machine gun.

Quite right, by caliber. By use, it is more properly a GPMG (general purpose) as its use overlaps the traditional "light MG" (fired from a bipod) and "medium MG" (fired from a tripod).

Regardless of use, the caliber of the M240, and the fact that it is belt fed mean it is not an assault rifle.

Another thing that helped the anti "assault" everything crowd was that for decades before these kinds of guns became a political matter, we, ourselves were sloppy and imprecise in what casual discussion there was. Articles in well known (and respected at the time, anyway) magazines often called the semi auto military lookalikes "assault rifles", even the .22LR versions.

But, hey, we all knew what we were talking about, right? Just like we all call our semiautomatic pistols "automatics", right?

Sometimes, our own habits come back to bite us....

 

[SIGSHR]

My M1888 .45-70 is an "assault rifle"-I carried it up San Juan Hill in 1898.

 

[Armed_Chicagoan]

According to the City of Chicago a BX-25 magazine transforms my 10/22 into an assault rifle.

 

[Theohazard]

The M240 is not a light machine gun. It's a medium machine gun.

Quite right, by caliber. By use, it is more properly a GPMG (general purpose) as its use overlaps the traditional "light MG" (fired from a bipod) and "medium MG" (fired from a tripod).

All I know is that when I was in from 1997 to 2001 we used it as a medium machine gun and that's how the Marine Corps referred to it. As M240G machine gunners, we always preferred to shoot off a tripod whenever possible. But we were deployed with MEU(SOC)s as a small offensive raid force going to shore in Zodiacs or helos, now I'll bet they use the M240B as more of a general-purpose machine gun.

 

[tipoc]

Another thing that helped the anti "assault" everything crowd was that for decades before these kinds of guns became a political matter, we, ourselves were sloppy and imprecise in what casual discussion there was. Articles in well known (and respected at the time, anyway) magazines often called the semi auto military lookalikes "assault rifles", even the .22LR versions.

But, hey, we all knew what we were talking about, right? Just like we all call our semiautomatic pistols "automatics", right?

This is essentially correct.

Theo, where I said you were wrong it was in assuming that the term "assault weapon" was the result of some scheme by antis. It wasn't that. It was a common term used by many, including Reagan and Ford and gun magazines and folk of the 1980s and 90s or earlier.

The discussion of "assault weapon" though is a separate discussion than what constitutes a assault rifle. There is nothing at all precise about "assault weapon" it's a political term. "assault rifle" is a different thing.

tipoc

 

[Justice06RR]

And to the guy who posted that the M249 SAW and the M240 are assault rifles, yea that's wrong too. They are not rifles at all, they are light machine guns. You can fire an M-2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun in single shot but that doesn't make it a rifle. They are not rifles and they are not Assault Rifles either.

That could be my mistake.

The main driving point here is that Anti-2A politicians have lumped all rifles in the Assault Rifle category just by looks alone. Most of them have no clue what an AR15 even stands for and think it means "Assault Rifle 15", and believe that if you hold the trigger it will keep firing until empty. Bloomberg is one of those idiots.

You also hear in movies calling M16's "machine guns".

What is the interchangeability of Machine guns vs Assault rifles (if any)?

 

[Theohazard]

Theo, where I said you were wrong it was in assuming that the term "assault weapon" was the result of some scheme by antis. It wasn't that. It was a common term used by many, including Reagan and Ford and gun magazines and folk of the 1980s and 90s or earlier.

I honestly don't know who came up with the term first. But regardless of the term's origins, it has ended up being used by the antis to confuse the general public, as the Josh Sugarmann quote from post #30 shows. Like you said, it's a political term that's completely meaningless outside of the "assault weapons ban" legislation designed to ban guns based on cosmetic features.

 

[Theohazard]

What is the interchangeability of Machine guns vs Assault rifles (if any)?

According to the ATF, all full-auto firearms are machine guns. But technically there's a difference, but also a small overlap: An assault rifle is defined in post #8, and a machine gun is a firearm that fires an intermediate or full-sized rifle cartridge and is designed for sustained full-auto fire, usually in a support role. Most machine guns in the military are large belt-fed weapons that are completely different than assault rifles, but some are designed to be deployed on the fire team level and are basically beefed-up magazine-fed assault rifles that are designed to handle the extra abuse of sustained full-auto fire.

A Colt M4 is an M4 regardless if its the civilian version or the Military version (select fire).

This is incorrect. The civilian version is not an M4, regardless of what it says on the side of the lower receiver. Technically "M4" only refers to the military version.