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

Rather ironic when a poster makes a point about how correct terms matter, and then goes on to use the terms both correctly and incorrectly in the very same post.

Try this, everytime you see "assault rifle" replace that with "Storm Rifle".

See how that plays on the emotions of the undereducated, and the anti gun bigots.

Its just as valid a term.

Or, when someone says that this, or that is an "assault rifle", tell them how glad you are to hear that they agree with Adolf Hitler! See how they like that!:rolleyes:

That, my friends is ALSO valid. (and at least as valid as the crap they antis constantly spew).

Hitler named the Assault Rifle. He called it the Sturmgewehr. That translates to "assault rifle" OR "storm rifle". Both are equally valid.

I, too, was one of the people reviled and called "baby killer" by those so convinced of their cause they refused to see anything beyond their slogans. Those people won't see reality until it bites them in the butt, and even then, a good portion of them still won't admit to seeing it. They are a lost cause.

They always remind me of a couple of old sayings, which have a degree of wisdom in them...

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig".

"Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it."
:D
 
Hitler named the Assault Rifle. He called it the Sturmgewehr. That translates to "assault rifle" OR "storm rifle".
Click to expand...

Sorry, no he didn't.:eek:

It was the engineers at the Haenel factory who renamed the "sub machine gun (Maschinpistol)" to "Assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr) to get it past him as he shared a dislike for "Gangster guns" with Churchill.
 
While I can't lay hands on any solid info at the moment, I have read different accounts about the naming of the Sturmgewehr, and all have agreed in the main that the engineers of Haenel called it an MP, to get around an early war Nazi decree that no further effort was needed developing new rifles.

Development of sub-machine guns was not prohibited as a waste of resources, so, obviously, their new gun was a Maschinen Pistole (sub machine gun).

Never saw any account of Hitler disliking "gangster guns". The accounts I have seen say that while furious at first, after it was demonstrated for him, he approved and HE said it was to be called the Sturmgewehr.

Now, this could be another of the WWII myths, but...

Knowing many other instances where Hitler, personally involved himself in German armaments programs, I find it quite likely he did name the gun. Prior to Hitler's approval they were MP 43 and MP 44, afterwards they were called Stg 44 and 45.

And as far as my extreme argument, even if Hitler himself, personally, did not name them Assault rifles, he certainly agreed with the use of the name. SO there! Nyahh!!!:p
(just kidding)
 
I always find it interesting how hugely important things in history can often be traced back to seemingly inconsequential events.

if that one Luftwaffe officer had answered Der Furher differently, things could have been much different.

If one squadron leader had flown a couple minutes more in one direction, if he had turned back when he "should have", the Battle of Midway would likely have turned out much differently.

If you look closely, you can see this in history, over and over. And then add in the "fog of war". An order NOT to charge gets, delivered and understood as an order to charge! etc.

These are the interesting details the History Channel (inclusive) ought to be telling us. NOT watered down, generalized information, that they GET WRONG!, anyway....
 
Definitions will change over time, officially or not. A heavy machine gun in WWI became a medium machine gun in WWII. Same gun. The Germans, as you know, developed the MG34 and later the MG42, to be used as both a light machine gun and a heavy machine gun. A rifle company's weapons platoon had a heavy machine gun section using exactly the same gun that was used in the rifle squad. The official manuals referred to it as simply a machine gun or machinengewehr. Apparently there is no distinct word for rifle in German, surprisingly.

But the British stubbornly referred to their Webleys and Enfield revolvers as "pistols." What do they know?

There was a reference in yesterday's paper to a policeman's AR-15 assault rifle. What do they know? An AR-15 is a sporting rifle. True, it was used in combat before the US bought any but does that matter?

Soldiers, by the way, have tended to be very conservative about weapons, at least until they're actually used in combat. Even then, many seem to prefer something their grandfather might have used. Magazine cut-off, anyone?
 
We also have a tendency to use the same definitions our grandfathers used. We just apply them to new things. Over time, the new thing, with the old name becomes the accepted standard.

"Ball" ammunition, anyone?

I'm also still in the cave, to me revolvers ARE pistols. They are also revolvers!;)

The MG34, and later the MG42 were a masterpiece of design concept, in that one gun, used either off a bipod, or a tripod, could fill the role of either light, or heavy machinegun. Later this idea (in general) was called the General Purpose Machine gun (GPMG).

and there is a distinct German word for rifle, Gewehr. :D
 
An AR-15 is a sporting rifle.
Click to expand...

Let me see I got me some bolt action rifles, some lever guns, shot guns, some semi auto carbines and rifles...Odd not a single "Sporting Rifle" in the bunch. Not even my AR do I think of or call a "Sporting Rifle". It's a semi automatic rifle.

To be a "Sporting Rifle" does it have to place bets? Wear a jaunty plaid hat?

The first and only time I heard the term "Sporting Rifle" was in connection with an AR based gun. This term seems to have come about only as a response to the Assault Weapon phrase and then late. Like the last decade or so.

Odd term. Like..."After a session of manscaping I enjoy to put on my plaid slacks and jacket, take my Sporting Rifle and sally forth to the range for some sport."

tipoc
 
A Colt M4 is an M4 regardless if its the civilian version or the Military version (select fire). They are both made by Colt and use many of the same parts with some obvious differences.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of a civilian version of the Colt M4. At least not a readily available one. I'm also not aware of a non select-fire version. From what I understand, the Colt M4 and variants all share several characteristics, including select fire capability making them all but impossible to acquire for widespread civilian ownership given their design age, and FOPA 1986.

Additionally, from what I understand all Colt M4's have a short barrel doubling down on the NFA characteristics. You may be confusing 16+ inch barrel AR-15 type firearms manufactured by Colt under different model names as an M4 maybe? For example the Colt LE6920 family which is semi-auto only, with a 16 inch barrel for zero NFA characteristics. But calling a Colt LE6920MP a Colt M4 is as inaccurate as calling an AMC H1 painted tan an HMMWV.
 
Is not a "sporting arm" something you use in the "shooting sports?"

Given what different militaries around the world actually call their weapons, one might reasonably say that "assault rifle" is a civilian term. I do not know when it first appeared in English. But I will check my 1960 edition of Small Arms of the World. There's hardly been anything new since then.

Here's another example of how terminology has changed over the years, at least in a relative sense, the same way that heavy machine gun evolved into a medium machine gun. However, it really isn't the terminology that has changed, it is what it is applied to. The word is "carbine." It was the short weapon that horse cavalry used up until either they stopped using horses or they switched to using the same rifle (generally a short rifle) that the infantry used. There are always exceptions, notably the final variations of the Mosin-Nagant bolt actions, which were shorter than the short rifles that almost everyone else had switched to from around 1900. But the earlier carbines were quite long for what we think of as carbines. But they had carbine rings and were clearly intended to a man on horseback.

It is possible that the term assault rifle evolved in the same way. It's a little like "sports car." Everyone knows there's only one sports car. Everything else is a misapplicatioin of the term.
 
the Colt M4 and variants all share several characteristics, including select fire capability
Click to expand...

Actually, the two main things that distinguish an M4 from the AR or M16 is: 1) the barrel extension feed ramps are cut deeper; and 2)the M4 upper has cuts that match up with the barrel extension. It has nothing to do with full-auto capability.
 
Skans said:
Actually, the two main things that distinguish an M4 from the AR or M16 is: 1) the barrel extension feed ramps are cut deeper; and 2)the M4 upper has cuts that match up with the barrel extension.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. You're describing what are commonly referred to as "M4 feed ramps". Many AR-15s come with M4 feed ramps that are exactly the same as the M4's.

Skans said:
It has nothing to do with full-auto capability.
Click to expand...
Actually it does. If it doesn't have any kind of full-auto capability then it's not an M4.

Let's take the Colt 6920 (an AR-15) and compare it to a Colt M4: The only difference between the two is that the 6920 has a 16" barrel and is semi-auto only, whereas the M4 has a 14.5" barrel and has a three-round burst capability (or full-auto with the M4A1).
 
I understand what you are saying, but if the M4 distinction is that it is full-auto, then an M4 would be identical to an M16, which it is not. The functional difference is the barrel and upper configuration, and arguably the 3-round burst option. However, I think there were M16's, before the M4, that also had 3-round burst capability.

I know that may AR people don't like to call something a "semi-auto" M4, but in my opinion, it makes a heck of a lot more sense referring to a semi-auto that is basically an M4 (w/o full-auto parts, holes) a semi-auto M4. I get it, I get it, there is no such thing as a semi-auto M4.............except in the real world, there is. I get tired of calling a particular gun a "semi-auto AR with M4 upper receiver and M4 Barrel extension"......Much easier to call it a semi-auto M4.
 
Skans said:
I understand what you are saying, but if the M4 distinction is that it is full-auto, then an M4 would be identical to an M16, which it is not. The functional difference is the barrel and upper configuration, and arguably the 3-round burst option.
Click to expand...
The M4 distinction from the AR-15 is that it's full-auto or burst. I'm not taking about the difference between the M4 and the M16, I'm talking about the difference between those military rifles and the AR-15. Your previous post was incorrect because you said the feed ramps on the barrel extension and the upper receiver are what distinguishes the M4 from the AR, which is not the case.

Yes, the M4 has a set of distinguishing features that make it different from the M16, including the barrel and upper configuration. But a civilian AR-15 can have all these exact same features (except for full-auto) and still not be an M4 or an M16.


  • The M4 is a specific rifle built to specific specifications (depending on the version), but all M4s have either full-auto or burst capability.

  • The M16 is also a specific rifle built to specific specifications (depending on the version), but all M16s have either full-auto or burst capability.

  • The AR-15 has no specific set of specifications, it's simply the generic term for a civilian version of the M4/M16 (I know Colt still owns the copyright on "AR-15", but the term is still in common use and has come to be a generic term). You can currently buy an AR-15 that's exactly the same as either an M4 or an M16, except for one difference: It's semi-auto only.

Skans said:
However, I think there were M16's, before the M4, that also had 3-round burst capability.
Click to expand...
The M16A2 and M16A4 (which is currently in use by the Marine Corps) have 3-round-burst. The M16A1 and M16A3 were full-auto; the latter was made mostly just for certain Navy units. Since the M16A2 was introduced in 1985 (I think it was), all general-issue M16s have been 3-round-burst only and not full-auto.

Skans said:
I know that may AR people don't like to call something a "semi-auto" M4, but in my opinion, it makes a heck of a lot more sense referring to a semi-auto that is basically an M4 (w/o full-auto parts, holes) a semi-auto M4. I get it, I get it, there is no such thing as a semi-auto M4.............except in the real world, there is. I get tired of calling a particular gun a "semi-auto AR with M4 upper receiver and M4 Barrel extension"......Much easier to call it a semi-auto M4.
Click to expand...
I just call it an AR-15. Since the M4 is technically a military rifle that has a full-auto or burst capability, it sometimes can get confusing when people say, "I have an M4." When someone says that to me, sometimes my first thought is that they have an SOT and a real dealer sample M4. But if you want to call something like a Colt 6920 a "semi-auto M4", that's fine; people will understand what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
But if you want to call something like a Colt 6920 a "semi-auto M4", that's fine; people will understand what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

One slang term I have heard to describe both the actual semi auto Colt product, and clones from whomever, is "M4geries".

Personally, I think its cute, and apt. Also clearly indicates the gun in question is not an actual M4, but something made to look like one.
 
So, if something only has a three-round burst capability instead of full-auto, does that mean it's not an assault rifle?
 
bluetrain said:
So, if something only has a three-round burst capability instead of full-auto, does that mean it's not an assault rifle?
Click to expand...

3 round burst = more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger = automatic fire capability = assault rifle.
 
"M4geries".

Personally, I think its cute, and apt. Also clearly indicates the gun in question is not an actual M4, but something made to look like one.
Click to expand...

I can go with that. It's just that when a term describing a particular type of gun gets too long, it makes the term worthless. "Semi-Auto Non-Colt AR15 type rifle with M4 Upper Receiver and M4 Barrel Extension" Just doesn't cut it. M4gery is much better.
 
So, if something only has a three-round burst capability instead of full-auto, does that mean it's not an assault rifle?
Click to expand...

3 round burst = more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger = automatic fire capability = assault rifle.
Click to expand...

I think this is why we're seeing "Select Fire" more often lately. I suspect the hope is select fire replaces automatic. Of course the waters around automatic were already muddy enough. I talk to a lot of people who think semi-automatic AR-15 M4gery clones ARE full-auto. Some of them even think a "45 Automatic" AKA a 1911 is full-auto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top