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

3 round burst = more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger = automatic fire capability = assault rifle.
Click to expand...
Yes, IF it also meets the other criteria. Automatic fire alone does not an Assault rifle make.


I think this is why we're seeing "Select Fire" more often lately. I suspect the hope is select fire replaces automatic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, incorrect use of term. 5yd penalty, loss of down...penalty declined, post again...:)

The term you want here is "BURST FIRE."

Burst fire IS full auto fire, just not continuous.

Select fire (aka selective fire) refers to the rifle's ability for the shooter to select the mode of fire, semi, full, or burst, at the shooter's choice.

Some variants of the M16 have semi and full auto (continuous), some have semi and burst fire. Both are select fire. Both are machineguns, under US law. Both are correctly "assault rifles"

The AR15 is semi auto only. No ablilty to select fire mode. SO, even while the AR15 meets the other requirements (magazine fed, intermediate power cartridge) because it does meet all three it is not correctly termed an "assault rifle".

News people, anti gun bigots, and the underinformed will call the AR15 an assault rifle, and believe they are correct, but they are not. It's really just that simple.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Boy you guys are all right and all wrong all at the same time, but I have to say it's Skans that got himself confused.

Skans, the statement you quoted was a statement that described what the rifles had in common, not what differentiated them as different. Don't know how you read this and interpreted that, but there you go. From that point on you guys have been chasing each other's tails around a really small tree :o
 
44AAMP, Yes, IF it also meets the other criteria. Automatic fire alone does not an Assault rifle make.
Click to expand...

And still we chase these definitions around and around and can't come back to grips with the OP's original post. Somehow I addressed it twice and still you guys can't stay on topic to discuss it.

Any chance at all you guys can get back on topic here?
 
My brain is melting with all this tail chasing. I have only seen 2 or 3 posts that hit it on the head as far as I am concerned.

Assualt Rifle was coined only about 20 years or so ago. Before that it never existed. It was a great way to push an agenda. If I could get the same media coverage for the term "varmint planter" in reference to the AR15 rifle as "Assualt Rifle" was given back then, most people what think it is a farm implement.

Our lexicon of terms is growing as this culture progresses, but this one term was created for an agenda and apparently some of us believe it.

This is just my opinion, but I am not fooled by the reason we have this word.

And the AR15 was once adverstised as a ranch/farm rifle.
 
Robk said:
My brain is melting with all this tail chasing. I have only seen 2 or 3 posts that hit it on the head as far as I am concerned.

Assualt Rifle was coined only about 20 years or so ago. Before that it never existed. It was a great way to push an agenda. If I could get the same media coverage for the term "varmint planter" in reference to the AR15 rifle as "Assualt Rifle" was given back then, most people what think it is a farm implement.
Click to expand...
Speaking of tail chasing, here we go yet again...

Once again, this is completely incorrect. Once again, someone here is mixing up the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon". This has already been discussed several times in this thread.

"Assault rifle" was coined about 70 years ago by the Germans in WWII (most say it was Hitler, some say it wasn't). It's a valid technical term that describes a rifle with a specific set of characteristics.

"Assault weapon" is a made-up political term that came about in the early 80s (my best guess) and has been used to fool people into supporting stupid laws that regulate guns based on scary cosmetic features.

Robk, you accuse us of tail-chasing, and yet you're doing the exact same thing by bringing up incorrect information that has already been debunked several times in this thread.
 
No TheoHazard, I accused people of "Tail Chasing" and the OP's original post and question has nothing at all to do with definition of Assault Weapons, Assault Rifles, or any of that.

The OP's original question was
By dakota.potts;
If what I've been told is true, our military doesn't touch the select fire switch on their rifles currently. They're taught to shoot semi-automatic and rarely burst fire. Am I right on this?

If this follows, and we still consider the M16A4/M4 to be assault rifles, what is the functional difference between a semi automatic AR 15 and a fully automatic M4 that only gets fired in semi automatic?
Click to expand...

Only a couple of posts in several pages of comment have attempted to address his question and it sure hasn't been discussed because we can't seem to stop talking about these definitions. Maybe just maybe we can get back on topic.
 
lcpiper said:
No TheoHazard, I accused people of "Tail Chasing" and the OP's original post and question has nothing at all to do with definition of Assault Weapons, Assault Rifles, or any of that.
Click to expand...
I know, I was referring to Robk: He also accused us of "tail chasing" and implied that most posts here were full of incorrect information, but he's doing the same thing by spreading incorrect information that's already been previously debunked in this thread.

lcpiper said:
Only a couple of posts in several pages of comment have attempted to address his question and it sure hasn't been discussed because we can't seem to stop talking about these definitions. Maybe just maybe we can get back on topic.
Click to expand...
I think the OP's question has been answered pretty thoroughly. Now all we're doing is correcting people who keep bringing up incorrect information, even though that incorrect information has previously been brought up and then corrected in this thread. So at this point we're basically just going in circles.
 
Oh Alright. I'll give up on any chance will have some discussion on the issue.

I'll tell my Soldier and Marine buddies that I won't need their expert testimony after all. They'll be so bummed :cool:
 
The OP asked a number of things, not just about "what is the functional difference..." And the OP also said,
All civil opinions are welcome on the subject.
Click to expand...

Arguing about "tail chasing" is usually the beginning of the end of civil discussions, and likely this thread, as well.

Several of the OP's questions and comments have been responded to, some, rather well. Also there has been discussion about what is, is not, or ought to be the proper terminology, something which is needed when we discuss this topic, as there is so much confusion.

I'm curious, though, why people are so afraid of the word? Why are they so afraid to say "I own an assault rifle"?
Click to expand...

To this question, I think the reason is the general confusion among so many people about the word "assault", and how it is used. It makes more than a bit of difference if you consider "assault" a noun, or a verb. Context matters, and often two different people will get two different meanings out of the same statement, and both believe they are right.
 
Is a select-fire AR-10 (original production) an assault rifle? What about the FAL, specifically the Sturmgewehr 58, the official name of the Austrian issue rifle? I realize this muddies the waters but perhaps this whole business of what is what and what isn't is a foolish game.

That is, unless someone here is in charge of the English language, the only language in the world that does not have an academy of learned men (nearly always men) who tell the unwashed masses what is what and what is not.

And that's all I got to say about that.
 
I think the reason is the general confusion among so many people about the word "assault", and how it is used.
Click to expand...

Well when the Germans named the STG44 an Assault Rifle I don't think they had verbal abuse in mind.
 
"Assault rifle" was coined about 70 years ago by the Germans in WWII (most say it was Hitler, some say it wasn't). It's a valid technical term that describes a rifle with a specific set of characteristics.

Jury is still out on that one.I can find referneces like this:

"Hitler was given the opportunity to test fire the MP44. Highly impressed, he dubbed it the "Sturmgewehr," meaning "storm rifle."
Click to expand...

does any other military officially call any of their weapons "assualt rifle",ie.
"M16 assault rifle" ?

offical M16 designation is "Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16"

Seems we use that term to describe something, not the military.I can not remember any miltary arm's military designation hase "assault" in it.(Could be wrong, but I have not heard it)I have just heard it used as a description of use.Even in the above quote,last sentence reads
that describes a rifle with a specific set of characteristics
Click to expand...

This is my opinion,opinions vary,refereneces vary, available information varies.YMMV and IMHO.

Should have put on the flame retardant suit on earlier...:eek:
Click to expand...
 
We could just go to Webster's Dictionary like the Supreme Court does to define a term.

Of course even that has flaws, as it doesn't take Burst Fire into account. Even Encyclopedia Britannica that was LINKED to and paraphrased/quoted by Webster's doesn't agree with Webster's own definition. It would appear that there is no uniformly agreed upon definition of the term.
 
Some armies do in fact term their infantry rifle "assault rifle," although not in English, as far as I know. The Stg44 was the first, though there haven't been all that many, frankly. Do you suppose anyone argued about whether or not a "machine pistol" was or was not a pistol, there having been a couple of select-fire pistols. The British went half-way and called them machine carbines until we convinced them to do it our way. They don't even use the term "smock" anymore. It's a "field jacket," a term which we only applied to the field jacket issued from 1941. Don't you love English?

So, an assault rifle doesn't have to be in an intermediate caliber. Remember, the 7.62 NATO was considered an intermediate caliber when it was first introduced back when I was in grade shool. It need not have a bayonet lug. Most do but the Stg44 did not. It need not have a pistol grip. An M2 carbine does not but it certainly has everything else, provided you consider the .30 carbine cartridge something more than a pistol round. A bipod doesn't disqualify it.

It is clearly a term in need of legal definition. Unfortunately that has happened and the problem is, we can't do that. Legislators can and did. Unlike "Scout Rifle," one man didn't design it and give it a name. Eugene Stoner was too late to make that claim and so was Kalashnikov. Williams missed his chance. The rest is, well, garbled.
 
What it "ain't"

When I was a boy, the word "ain't" was not considered a proper word. You got marked down for using it. Teachers would tell you to find it in the dictionary. And guess what? It ain't there!

Today, it IS in the dictionary. Why? because despite the fact that it wasn't proper English, people kept saying it.

Dictionaries (usually stated in the preface) give you words and definitions as found in popular usage. This may, or may not be the correct definition when used in a technical field. It may, or may not be the correct usage as found in LAW.

Going to the dictionary does not guarantee the definition you find is the correct one for the situation.

As far as I know, there is no definition of "assault rifle" in US law. The law considers assault rifles as machineguns (which they are), and only refers to them as such.

There is a definition in law of "assault weapon", since 94, and does NOT cover machineguns, only semi auto firearms, and certain shotguns.

No, "assault rifle" was never an industry standardized term, only one approved though general consensus and use. There is some flexability, and some guns were called assault rifles that don't perfectly fit the usual definition.

There was even a term made up, "battle rifle" intended to cover those guns that met the usual standards for assault rifle, other than caliber. AR10, FAL, M14, G3,etc. Of course, as soon as we started saying "battle rifle" to describe these guns, others decided (like they did with assault rifle) that if it was carried in battle, it was a battle rifle. This, of course includes every arm with rifling used since muzzle loading days.

There are apparently three camps. Knowledgeable individuals who use the term consistent with the generally accepted definition in use in the shooting community since Germany developed and named the Sturmgewehr in WW II.

Anti gun bigots who use the term for any rifle that has a "big bullet clip" shoots fast, and can be used to assault someone...

And the rest of the people, who are confused, and deliberately mislead by the antis.
 
There is a definition in law of "assault weapon", since 94, and does NOT cover machineguns, only semi auto firearms, and certain shotguns.
Click to expand...

There are multiple definitions in various levels of US law, that also aren't uniform and in agreement unfortunately. Some of them may also cover pistols- especially those with a threaded barrel regardless if there's anything attached or not.
 
It is clearly a term in need of legal definition.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I agree as the ATF clearly has it all covered just fine. According to current Federal law there are what? Five classes of firearms?

Handguns
Rifles
Shotguns
Machineguns
Any other Weapon

I could be missing one, but I am pretty sure that if I am, it's not Assault Rifle or Assault Weapon.
 
All words are just "made up." Not necessarily out of thin air, of course, and especially not in German. Some get "borrowed" from someone else that made them up. If you built something yourself or modified something, I suppose you could then call it anything you wanted. As far as I'm concerned, you can even make up a new name. The Chevrolet Suburban was introduced before WWII but it was a long time before anyone started calling it an "SUV." Suburban Utility Vehicle? One of my favorite words is Sonderkraftfahrzeug, although I rarely get a chance to use it in normal conversation.
 
Why not call each by what the make and model the manufacture stamps on them . That would throw the [anti-gunners] for a loop . They would have to spend weeks trying to make sence of it .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top