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

[44 AMP]

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

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

Simple answer, assault rifles are machine guns. AND they are semi automatic rifles, in the same package, you choose which with a selector lever (or button). That is why we refer to them as "select fire".

Under us law, the M16 IS a machine gun. EVERYTHING that fires full automatic (no matter if it is designed for constant full auto or just occasional full auto) is legally a machine gun.

Essentially an assault rifle is a LMG, with the added provision for semi auto fire. Some LMGs have a semi auto setting, most do not. Most LMGs are in calibers too big to qualify as an assault rifle, even if they are select fire and magazine fed.

 

[Theohazard]

Essentially an assault rifle is a LMG, with the added provision for semi auto fire.

Sure, you could use any assault rifle as an LMG if you had to. But most dedicated LMGs that are based off of assault rifles are built to handle the extra stresses of sustained full-auto fire. For example, the Marine Corps' M27 IAR is basically the same as the HK 416, which handles full-auto fire better than the standard M4 or M16 and therefore works well as a lightweight SAW or LMG. Even then, with the M27 you're giving up the ability to put more rounds downrange but gaining much more maneuverability and portability.

Though I'll admit that I'm definitely biased towards open-bolt belt-fed machine guns considering that's what I used when I was in. Sure, they're heavier and less maneuverable, but boy can they put a lot of rounds downrange!

 

[Skans]

I call my AR's, AK's, FAL, Spectre, FNC, etc, etc. Assault Weapons.

Why? Because I think it sounds nicer than "Flesh Shredders".

 

[wogpotter]

Essentially an assault rifle is a LMG,

Not really, there's that "intermediate power cartridge" thingy getting in the way.
LMG & GPMG should fire a full power load.
(except the SAW, which IMO is neither anyway)

 

[lcpiper]

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.

The "vast majority of time" is defined by situation, not by "normal"," usual", or "frequency". In Afghanistan where engagement distances are usually greater, semi auto is used more often but in Iraq in urban areas engagement ranges are closer and semi-auto is used far less frequently. But the premiss that Semi-Auto is the usual mode used is false.

 

[lcpiper]

Essentially an assault rifle is a LMG, with the added provision for semi auto fire.

No, look guys, the big difference here is the capability for the weapon to deliver sustained fire. An assault rifle will begin burning up it's barrel far too quickly to be used in a LMG manner. If you start firing 250 rounds in rapid bursts of 3 to 5 rounds at a wack in a suppressive fire mode as a machinegun is intended to do you will cook an M4 or an AK barrel.

The ability to fire the weapon semi-auto has nothing to do with it either as an M-2 .50 Cal Machine gun can also be fired semi-auto.

But the OP wasn't talking about all this, he was talking about whether an AR-15 and an M-16 are not really the same thing if the capability that makes them different is rarely used.

We have been running off topic for most of this thread. I'll solve the LMG, GPMG, MMG debate right now. ATF says if it fires more then one round with a single pull of the trigger it's a machine gun. Everything beyond this is determined by the "role" of how the weapon will be used and not the form or function of said weapon..

 

[patriotic]

I think we went through this definition thing in another thread on this board. What is a “sniper” rifle; a rifle used by a sniper, right? By definition then an “assault rifle” is a rifle used to assault something, right? If you are not assaulting anything you cannot have an assault rifle. A military rifle is a rifle used by the military; if you are not in the military you do not have a military rifle. If you are assaulting something is preferable to have a weapon that can lay down suppressive fire; hence automatic mode. It should also be noted that the term AR-15, AR stands for ArmaLite and not “Assault Rifle”. The original design of the Stoner/ARmaLite M-16.

 

[dakota.potts]

So, corollary question:

What about firearms such as the M14 which, to my understanding, are issued today with semi-auto only capacity? Are these not military rifles? When we drop in mil-spec parts? Heck, aren't many civilian owned M14s possibly better rifles than the standard issue military weapons with custom parts for high accuracy and durability? What about AR-10s that effectively replicate some of today's sniper/marksman systems such as the SR25?

Is it still possible to deny that there aren't military weapons in private hands, or at least weapons that are so functionally similar there may not even be a considerable difference?

I think this is something we should embrace, not deny and say "Please don't ban my semi automatic defense rifle, it's good and pure unlike the fully automatic assault weapon that it looks like"

 

[dakota.potts]

Patriotic:

Say I buy a Savage varmint rifle. A kind marketed and built for varminting and used by many varminters. I don't shoot it much at the range, but I keep it in case of varmint outbreaks on my farm.

Do I not still own a varmint rifle even if I don't use it for varminting? Or is it just a sitting rifle if all it does is sit in a safe?

 

[Theohazard]

But the premiss that Semi-Auto is the usual mode used is false.

That statement is false, at least in the Marine Corps infantry (I can't speak for any other services). In the Marine Corps infantry, the majority of the time the selector switch on your rifle is on SEMI.

 

[Theohazard]

Dakota, the answer to your question is that almost every fiream is directly or indirectly related to a military design. The term "military-style" has become almost completely meaningless; unless it's a design that's exactly the same as one that the military uses, it's not a military firearm.

 

[1stmar]

It doesn't matter what the true definition of assault rifle is, what matters is the how it is used and understood in society. Perception is reality. The media and government misuse terms all the time. It's a vehicle for driving an agenda. If the op wants to use it to describe his weapons that fine but should recognize that the true definition is irrelevant. We can argue all day about it, looks what's in the laws "assault weapons ban" et al had nothing to do with selective fire. It was all about magazine capacity or bayonet lugs or flash suppressors etc. The media doesn't even understand the term semi-automatic.

 

[wogpotter]

I think I see a cause of confusion here.
"Military Rifle" does not necessarily equal "assault weapon" You can have a "Military Rifle that is not an "Assault Weapon" & an "Assault Weapon" that is not a "Military Rifle".

Which specifically are we trying to discuss

 

[Skans]

The bottom line is for the life of my, I can't figure out why any of us care whether or not AR's and semi-auto AK's are called "Assault Weapons". We would do far better to embrace the term rather than run away from it. You only empower the antis by running away from terms like "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Rifle".

As far as the real differences between an AR and an M4 or M16, probably 95% of the people on this board can rattle off the differences. I know every little part and milled section of the upper and lower receivers that distinguishes the full-auto/burst version from the semi-auto version. And, to be honest, there really are only a handfull of differences. Put a good bumpfire stock on an AR and learn to use it, and the functionality blurs even more.

So, while we laugh at the antis for wanting to ban cosmetic features on AR's like pistol grips and bayonet lugs; is it really any less laughable that we try to convince ourselves that an AR with a good bump-fire stock is really all that much different (functionally) than an M16? Or that a Mini-14 with a device installed that permits you to fire a shot on the pull and on the release of the trigger is that much different than an AC556?

 

[lcpiper]

In the Marine Corps infantry, the majority of the time the selector switch on your rifle is on SEMI.

The same is true for US Special Forces but this doesn't matter at all. Every one of them will switch modes when the situation calls for it. Are you ready to say that it's forbidden to use anything but Semi-Auto? I can't even believe you are arguing this "majority of the time" argument. In truth, most of the time, the weapons are not even loaded, most of the time.

There was a time when almost anyone could mail order a Thompson Machinegun from a catalog. Federal Laws changed this, Federal Laws set definitions for Handguns, Rifles, Machineguns, Any other Weapons, Destructive Devices, etc. Those are the definitions that matter.

But because Federal Laws have been used to define and restrict weapons possession there remain people who want to further this process and create new definitions and establish new restrictions. I am not a lawyer and I can't tell you if the best strategy is to embrace terms and definitions for weapons that are not currently restricted in an effort to establish that said weapons are above restriction. I can't say that it's not better to fight for every inch, argue every point, reject attempts to define classes of weapons in order to refute claims that said classes should be restricted. You have a hard time banning "Assault Weapons" when you can't define them in an acceptable manner. If you define them by bayonet lugs and pistol grips and not by function then it becomes difficult to sell the idea that these features have any effect on the risk of not restricting them. Detachable Box Magazines and Magazine Capacity, these features are more to the point and more difficult to argue against.

 

[Theohazard]

Are you ready to say that it's forbidden to use anything but Semi-Auto?

Where did that come from? Now you're just being ridiculous and making a straw man argument: Nobody is saying that.

I can't even believe you are arguing this "majority of the time" argument.

I can't believe you're arguing against it. In the Marine Corps the M4s and M16s are fired on SEMI a majority of the time. Period. End of story. Arguing against that is ridiculous and simply incorrect. Sure, AUTO and BURST are used on occasion (and sometimes more than just on occasion), but -- as a whole -- SEMI is used most often by far.

 

[wogpotter]

The bottom line is for the life of my, I can't figure out why any of us care whether or not AR's and semi-auto AK's are called "Assault Weapons". We would do far better to embrace the term rather than run away from it. You only empower the antis by running away from terms like "Assault Weapon" or "Assault Rifle".

I'm afraid I'm taking the 100% opposing view on that perspective.
Its a made up scary-sounding term to frighten the unknowing. Accepting it is both false & misleading. Look at how invented & deceptive terminology has been used to scare the unknowing about many other things & you'll see why we need to keep accurate terminology going before we all die from Man-induced global warming & cooling, aka Globull climate change.

 

[pturner67]

People are scared of anything with "assault" attached to it. Add some black color and a scope, and it becomes flat out evil. The media knows this and pushes a very specific agenda. Why don't they rename other things like "assault bat" or "assault hammer" or "assault knife"? Blunt object homicides in the US are about 40% higher than by rifle.

 

[psalm7]

It seems some Firearm owners think if you use certain words or dress a certain way or otherwise promote a certain image the .... anti gun folk will leave them alone or not fight as hard to deni others they don't agree with thier Constatutional rights . Like not long ago in a Gun shop one big loud mouth made sure every one heard his position that no one needs to own a .50 cal skiper rifle . I his mind if we give that right up the .... left would leave us all alone to own all the other fire arms we want .

 

[44 AMP]

So, while we laugh at the antis for wanting to ban cosmetic features on AR's like pistol grips and bayonet lugs; is it really any less laughable that we try to convince ourselves that an AR with a good bump-fire stock is really all that much different (functionally) than an M16? Or that a Mini-14 with a device installed that permits you to fire a shot on the pull and on the release of the trigger is that much different than an AC556?

I laugh at the anti's for wanting to ban anything, but particularly because their chosen standards for assault weapons (the "bad" features) are so far removed from their stated goal (less deadly weapon) as to be laughable.

But focusing on this, is a risk, just as focusing on the practical function of the mechanism is also. It could actually support the other side to point out how bump fire, and trigger gadgets can be used.

Their root idea is if it holds a lot of bullets and shoots fast, it is BAD!
And, (primarily) because the people involved at the time didn't understand where it might go, they got that idea in law with the NFA 34.

We've now had nearly 80 years of that basic idea being subtly and not so subtly re-enforced in our society. Holds lots of bullets, shoots fast =BAD. Must be licensed/restricted/BANNED for public safety.

We lost when we gave them the ability to do this to automatic weapons. Now they want to do it to anything and everything that might be possibly used in a manner resembling an automatic weapon.

Personally, I think we'd all be better off if we could stop wasting time, energy, effort and money on this, and focus on the simple fact that killing people for fun or profit is evil, and the size shape and look of whatever tool used is irrelevant.

People willing, even eager to do violence is the problem, and focusing on what they might do it with, is not focusing on the problem.