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

Assault weapon/assault rifle are terms used interchangeably by the crowd that wants to ban these types of weapons, b/c the word 'assault' conjures images of full-auto combat. Period.
Then follows the 'need' question. It seems logical, (almost) even to me.
Defining a weapon by its technical capabilities is not the point nor the aim of these terms when they are used in gun control debates. I never focus on the specifics of the definition until asked (and they will ask after I follow the following 3 point program):

To end the trip into the weeds I stress several points:
1. Assault weapons are already banned or registered at the federal level in the US.
2. AR15s are not assault weapons or they would be banned/registered at the federal level.
x3x. If you're afraid of the mere sight of them, even in pictures, then you should probably get professional help to allay your neurotic anxieties. (Ok, this third point was just me talking in my head and doesn't actually help get the hypothetical conversation back to center). Just strike this. :D
3. Rifle deaths (as pointed out already on this thread) rank behind several other methods of killing in these United States according to FBI crime statistics. You're chasing a statistical non-entity by trying to ban rifles. The clear counter-argument to statement 3 is that each death matters. Now I got them: I point out the blunt instrument stats and ask when they are going to move to have those registered/controlled.

So Mr. Potts. I don't want my semi-auto rifles (10/22s included) cataloged as assault rifles b/c they are NOT. Nor do I want to support a bogus conversation about public safety that is based on lies to achieve disingenous goals.

As an aside:
I also despise the term "Modern Sporting Rifle"? Oh really? What's next? The Post-Modern Sporting Rifle? Have we become an art history class? Is my pre-64 Winchester a pre-Modern sporting rifle? It's a stupid term that has a built-in expiration date. Call it a Semi Sporting Rifle or a Semi-auto Sporting Rifle if you wish. SSR is cool sounding and has the accurate description built into the title.

My 2c
 
It's all been said. We cannot allow ourselves to acquiesce in the bogus definition that the anti-gunners and media have ascribed to assault rifle - we MUST stick with its true definition (select-fire, etc.).

But you think we have problems... in the UK, the law bans "offensive weapons" including "offensive" knives - now try to figure out what THAT is (versus a defensive knife). There is no objective definition either (based on length or whathaveyou). It's utterly nonsensical, yet people get convicted of it all the time.
 
Last edited:
Here's what inspired me to start the thread.

I was in a local gun rights group on Facebook and somebody posted a link about the Texas Open Carriers (no more needs to be said about that) where somebody said that they were carrying "military weapons" into Target and everybody threw a big fit saying that their AR-15s aren't military or assault weapons.

They are, legally, assault weapons. Are they assault rifles? Probably not.

But we act like they are not practically very very close to weapons issued and used by the US Military. People set up their M14s in military configurations all the time, as well as AR10s, for instance. We use Mil-spec drop in parts in our AR-15s and many even prefer to use optics currently in use by the military.

The line becomes even more blurred when you consider bump fire stocks and full-auto replacement triggers. Sure, legally they're still semi auto, but considering they're selective fire between semi auto and a sustained fire method very similar to automatic fire (and maybe even what could be considered automatic fire at its base) are we not pushing the line ever closer?

I think we know that the goal of many is for us to end up like Canada: Pump action shotguns and bolt action rifles legal, all weapons pinned to accept 5 rounds (10 if they use a pistol magazine -- see if that lasts much longer), special training and licensing needed for any "restricted" firearm, extreme difficulty obtaining handguns, etc.

We have a right to bear arms for individual and collective defense. I think we pretty much all agree that the second amendment protects our AR-15 and even weapons beyond that. Delineating our AR-15 from military weapons only creates the arguments that we only "need" weapons that are for sporting and "defense." That's very dangerous because it allows them to move their goal posts. If we keep pushing it that way, your Ruger 10/22s WILL be banned. Especially when they see Archangel stocks and BX-25 magazines. If they're not banned, they will end up pinned to accept 10 rounds hand loaded without removable magazines because "nobody needs quick-reload bullet capacity for shooting paper targets".

I think we should own up to the fact that many of us are indeed doing our absolute very best to replicate military and above fire power and that we believe it's our right to do so.
 
doofus47 said:
1. Assault weapons are already banned or registered at the federal level in the US.
2. AR15s are not assault weapons or they would be banned/registered at the federal level.
Click to expand...
Both of these are incorrect. The federal 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004; so-called "assault weapons" are no longer regulated and banned on a federal level. But in every state-level ban, the AR-15 is considered an "assault weapon" until one or more cosmetic features is removed.

I can only assume you're mixing up the term "assault weapon" with "assault rifle". Remember, an assault rifle is a real thing, and it describes a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate-power cartridge; but an "assault weapon" is a made-up class of weapon used to regulate guns based on how many scary-looking features they have.
 
I agree with D. Potts in #63 for the most part.

Two points I might add. Many police departments only have semi auto AR platforms and these are clearly not sporting arms. Also, Patton claimed that an 8 round Garand was the greatest battle rifle. So a 30 round carrying AR is a sporting gun.

I've said in this thread and elsewhere - the assault debate isn't really useful. Distinguishing between semi and full auto is - but remember if you demonize the full auto (as Metcalf did), you agree that we shouldn't have them.
 
For the new members

And what discussion of assault weapons/assault rifles would be complete without this classic, defining, gif...

a_salt.gif

Many thanks to whoever it was that came up with this..it's not original with me.
 
The root problem is that the elitists (in this case, anti-gun bigots) believe they have the moral authority to decide what other people need.

The practical problem is that in many places, they have the legal power to do so.

Here's another way to twist their tangled logic...
(and I do like the one about "every death is important..., too)

When they talk about what you or I need, ask them how much money they make.

Most of the US has some level of legal minimum wage. This is the amount of money that the govt, in all its collective wisdom has determined to be what you need to live on.

If I don't need an assault weapon (however they define it) then they don't need any income above minimum wage.

I'll consider giving up mine, after they give up theirs. (no, I don't think I'll need to consider it very hard, or for very long, but if they DO make the good faith gesture, and give up all their income above minimum wage, I will consider it...)

This won't work on any die hard fanatic (nothing will), but it might give a fence sitter something to consider when it comes to giving other people the authority to decide what you, or I, or they need.

Gun enthusiasts, as a group, tend to like accuracy. Accuracy in our guns, and our shooting, and in our terms. The anti's will tell you a sparrow is a flying fish, if they think they have a chance of banning either.

Discussing what species of bird it is can be useful amongst ourselves, but means nothing to those who want anything that flies, temporarily, at some point in its life, banned.
 
Distinguishing between semi and full auto is - but remember if you demonize the full auto (as Metcalf did), you agree that we shouldn't have them.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. And, I would add that there really isn't that much difference between a full-auto M16 and a semi-auto AR with bumpfire, etc. Do you really want to dive so deep into beating the differences between "semi-auto rifle" and "assault rifle" into the heads of people, where one is "good" and the other is "bad", to where the antis will ultimately use that against us?

I take the position that full-auto guns are fine to own and are no more or less lethal than semi-auto firearms. If we had today's NRA and the number of today's people interested in preserving the 2nd Amendment just prior to 1934 and in 1986, we would have sent the anti's the way of the prohibitionists. But, they got lucky - gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates were asleep and the antis pounced on the opportunity. Practically speaking there is very little difference between the capabilities of an AR15 and an M16. The biggest difference is that we woke up and stopped the antis before they went even farther at whittling away at the 2nd Amendment.

Firearms are designed and made as a tool used for killing. Killling people and/or killing animals. I don't run from that. There are other forms of "non-lethal" defense - guns firing hot, hollow-point ammo are not among them. There are other "non-lethal" machines for target practice ranging from Airsoft to a variety of pellet guns (yes, they could be lethal, but not ordinarily to humans) - however, that is not the primary purpose of firearms.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Again TheoHazard, I think this line of reasoning is pointless as time has nothing to do with it at all. Not time, not frequency, not any of that. It's about capability and the capability is used when the situation is appropriate for it to be employed, and that is what the training is about.
 
Practically speaking there is very little difference between the capabilities of an AR15 and an M16.
Click to expand...

I don't know about this. I used to smoke the barrels on M16A1s in the Army and besides being a hoot I could deliver some very effective full auto fire with one. The slings used to come with a mettle clip for the back sling-point that was easy to detach. With very little practice I was able to detach that clip letting the sling hang by the front sling-point, take a kneeling position while stepping on the sling so that it became an anchor to control the weapon while firing full-auto. The muzzle wouldn't rise a millimeter, in fact, it would drop just a fraction instead of climbing as the recoil drove your shoulder back a small amount thereby pulling down on the barrel.

I used this technique several times after we finished qualifying our troops at the range when it was time to burn up the excess ammo we had drawn from the AHA.
 
lcpiper said:
Again TheoHazard, I think this line of reasoning is pointless as time has nothing to do with it at all. Not time, not frequency, not any of that. It's about capability and the capability is used when the situation is appropriate for it to be employed, and that is what the training is about.
Click to expand...
That's true. But it doesn't make anything I posted incorrect.
 
Oh, I think the problem is that the "elitist," by which I suppose you mean a liberal elistist, is not trying to regulate what you need but rather what you shouldn't have. Some conservatives are like that, too.

More to the point, however, is that the term assault rifle or assault weapon is really just a term, an unfortunate term, because everyone seeks to define it for their own purposes. It has a history, in other words.

Your Chalreville musket or your 1873 Springfield musket are not assault weapons. I believe the first application of the word was on the Browning Automatic Rifle. It was intended for "assault marchng fire." It didn't have a bipod. True, it was "rifle caliber," but so was the FG-42 chambered in 8mm Mauser. I don't know where this nonsense about an intermediate cartridge came from. Is a 6.5 Mauser an intermediate? Some BARs were made in that caliber, by the way.

The word in German is usually used as "storm," which was a cool word at the end of WWI, rather like "special forces" is now. You've heard of storm troopers, I assume. Not the motorcycle police, the other ones. The Germans even has an assault gun, which was a 75mm self-propelled gun intended for infantry assault support.

By the way, when you have time, take out your Colt Government Model (not the 1911 that someone stole from the army) and see what it says on the side. I imagine it irritates some people that it says Government Model but it will say "Colt Automatic." They probably meant to say semi-automatic, no doubt. It will also probably irritate everyone else that their .45 auto doesn't say Colt anywhere.

Everything falls apart, I'm afraid, when any claim is made that something is a sporting arm and is therefore harmless. There was a murder in the county where I live and the weapon was a single shot pistol. I think it was a Thompson Contender.
 
Last edited:
Dakota, the M-14 that was issued when I was in the military was semi-auto but with the addition of a selector switch became a semi and full auto select fire rifle. M-14s were used as sniper rifles in Vietnam and also today with only the addition of a good scope. They are very accurate rifles with maybe the only addition of match ammunition. Yes they are military rifles but the M-14s sold today on the commercial market are not military rifles and are not issued to the military and they are mechanically different and will not accept a selector switch.

AR-15 rifles are also not issued to the military nor are commercial M-4s. The military version is mechanically different having select fire capability. The reason I bring this all up is to illustrate to the firearm illiterates (antis) that there is a difference between an ordinary rifle and this military killing machine they call an “assault rifle”? Let me ask you about your “varmint rifle”? What makes it unique as a varmint rifle? Is it the caliber or the usage? If you use it to shoot targets is it now a target rifle? Could another person make the distinction between a varmint rifle, a target rifle or a sniper rifle? So why bother, it is a rifle.

What gets me is the evil attached by the antis to stupid things like a pistol grip on a rifle, an adjustable stock, a removable magazine, a flash suppressor or a bayonet lug. Also stupid statements made by NY’s governor Cuomo “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”. Mr. Cuomo I don’t intend to kill a deer, I shoot paper targets but I may also have to defend my family in which case I may need as many bullets as your State Police and National Guard carry.
 
Patriotic, I think you're making my point for me.

MY CZ 452 is a bench-rest rifle. Or is it a varmint rifle? Is it a sniper rifle? It certainly is capable of killing small varmints humans, or even large game from 200 yards or even more in skilled hands. It's not a varmint rifle to me, but the next guy may look at it and decide it is one.

So say I have an AR-15. It's a sporting rifle, target rifle, hunting rifle yada yada depending on who's looking at the rifle.

Along comes Mr. Joe Representative and says "That's an assault rifle! You can't have that"

You say "No, Mr. Joe. This isn't an assault rifle. It only shoots semi automatic. I just use it for shooting paper targets and chipmunks."

And Joe Representative says "Well, if that's all you use it for, what do you need all those ridiculous features for? A flash hider? Are you trying to be invisible from the chipmunks? Are you going to stab them with the bayonet lugs? Do you need your pistol grip to spray from the hip? We have to ban these features to save the children and you can still have your sport/target/hunting/varminting rifle while we ban the evil military-patterned semi automatic rifles capable of accepting 30 round or larger magazines, pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs."

At some point, isn't it in our best interests to say "It's 98% of what a military rifle is and with a little machining it is a military rifle. I own a military-type rifle because I have a second amendment right to do so. Law abiding citizens are not the ones abusing these rights and are the only ones stopped from owning them by these laws."

Obviously the whole conversation above is over the top, but I consider it to be very close to the argument we're currently having.
 
Yes I agree the whole discussion is over the top and we have allowed the antis to set their agenda by allowing them to get away with a mischaracterization of the rifle. Just like many years ago (1967) when I was in the Atlanta airport fresh out of basic training and college students would come up to me and call me “baby killer”. No, I am not a baby killer I am a US soldier. Isn’t it funny that a pistol grip on a pistol is OK but on a rifle it is evil as is a flash suppressor that doesn’t really suppress the flash but redirects it so the shooter doesn’t have his line of sight impacted by the flash?
 
As firearms loyalist we should make an effort to educate ourselves further and ensure the future of our rights and hobbies in this case firearms do not get a negative connotation. For example the media always and many new hobbyists as well thought that AR stood for assault rifle instead of Armalite.

You as a civilian will never buy an assault rifle regardless of model or make since you do not plan to use it in the same manner or theater as the military.

For that matter you as a civilian can never buy a sniper rifle, since you are not a sniper. You can purchase a precision rifle but not a sniper rifle. Terms are relevant because you definitely need to know what you are talking about or referring to when you speak to some one with more knowledge and experience than you. You definitely wouldn't want to use a clip on your rifle when you really need a magazine.....right???
 
There are other buzz words like this, too. But I think mostly it is a legalistic euphemism flexible enough to suit anyone. There have been other things like that, usually to evade the law, although in this case, it is to, I think, enlarge the law, after a fashion.

Way back before World War II, there was a controversy within the army over who should have tanks. The new tank corps felt they should only belong to the tank corps. The cavalry, in spite of still wanting to keep their horses, also wanted tanks but the law was somehow written to prevent the horse soldiers from having tanks, although they did get horse trailers. They finally managed to get tanks, too, only they weren't tanks. They got "combat cars." So, friends, you can't have an assault rifle. But you can have an AR-15.

Other buzz words that you hear sometimes include Saturday night special, cop killer bullets, sniper rifle, riot gun, trench gun, cheap gun and one not used so much any more: hair trigger.

One of my favorites remains, and this came straight from a US Army field manual, is: .38 Regular.
 
I think folks who own guns and read and keep up will care about terms/words and accuracy of information concerning guns. But everyone else it at risk of being followers of agendas that seek to rid this country of individual freedoms. Guns, speech, property, wealth, all parts of the same agenda.

"Assualt rifle", "Military style", "spraying bullets", "guns designed to kill people". These phrases are effective tools, they will be heard again and again.

I can correct someone when they use a term incorrectly, but they will still vote against my rights unless they see the bigger picture.
 
ms6852 said:
You as a civilian will never buy an assault rifle regardless of model or make since you do not plan to use it in the same manner or theater as the military.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately words mean things, but you don't get to make up the definitions.

I'm pretty sure that I'm a civilian, and I have bought 2 assault rifles, along with the appropriate tax stamps. It's a defined physical object. Owner's status, planned use, or theater of use has no bearing on whether or not it's an assault rifle. Mine were assault rifles when they were built in the mid 1960's and used in Vietnam, and they're still assault rifles today.

2. The definition of an “assault rifle” is “Assault rifles are short, compact, select-fire (i.e. both semiautomatic and full-automatic) weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.

Selective fire is defined as a weapon, which at the user’s selection, can fire semi-automatic or fullautomatic fire. Semi-automtic is defined as a weapon designed to fire each time the trigger is pulled. Full automatic is defined as a weapon which will fire continuously as long as the trigger is pulled.
Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...rYGQCw&usg=AFQjCNEQRGmb5mc4B_z9GMBN9w8TctMSkQ

ms6852 said:
For that matter you as a civilian can never buy a sniper rifle, since you are not a sniper. You can purchase a precision rifle but not a sniper rifle.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, unfortunately for you, your definitions don't match the ones in common use.

sniper
- definition
noun [countable] /ˈsnaɪpər/

someone who shoots at people from a hidden place
Click to expand...

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/sniper

Every rifle ever made is a potential "sniper rifle". If it's used to shoot at people from a hidden place, it is a sniper rifle whether it's "super precision" or a piece of crap.

bluetrain said:
So, friends, you can't have an assault rifle. But you can have an AR-15.
Click to expand...

So exactly when did my M16's quit being assault rifles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top