General question on terminology

bamaranger

New member
terms

I've listened to more than one military or soldier type (no offense intended) who did not have their terminology , vernacular, or facts quite right. For example, there seems to be a fair bit of interchangeability over the designation "7.62". Have you read Chis Kyles "American Gun"? The book was co=authored after his death (that may not be the right description) but even so, terms are used loosely and recognized as not quite right by folks that are. ....enthusiasts.

The shooting sport is a technical one, and specific terms do have specific meanings. Misuse of terms implies an unfamiliarity with the topic and I think leads the reader to judge the narrative as flawed and thus of little significance. Get your lingo right and folks will take you more seriously.
 

stagpanther

New member
Unless they are a shooter themselves with experience with the firearm in question--my golden rule is NEVER engage in conversation with people unknown to me. I don't have time for troll-baiting.
 

stuckinthe60s

New member
with 22 years military background, and being out for as long or longer, i will claim ignorance and just post what i was lead to believe in my small world. times have changed since i retired so its just up for anyone to consider, i make no claim to correctness...........
i always understood a battle rifle to be a main full size caliber weapon. at the time of ww2, that was the 30-06. the battle (head to head combat,) rifle had (in my opinion) more than one use and was uniform in design, firing, smashing, laddering, prying, stabbing, launching, etc... ammo was sent forward to support the battle.
the assault rifle (take a preplanned objective,)was unique for a certain task, i/e: burp gun, M1 carbine, thompson, folding stock weapons, etc.. ammo was packed in.
you had your main infantry i/e: 4th inf', and special operations groups, i/e: 'submarine boat crews, frogmen, boarding teams, oss, etc...

nam comes along. the 7.62 M14 was the battle rifle, the 5.56 m16 was a security weapon/assault weapon.
the 14 gets dropped, and so does the battle term. all weapons become assault weapons. why? the type of combat shifted from head to head to air assault and patrol in nam. yes yes, there was head to head, and the complaints of not enough firepower from a 556 came up too.

so here we are today. all weapons are assault weapons. when complaints arose concerning power at distance in the sand box, well well....the 14 was reintroduced. the battle rifle never went away afterall.

like i say, this is just my opinion and i dont claim it to be factual. i report, you decide. hope it helps.
 
Last edited:

Shadow9mm

New member
Into the weeds we go!

Technically speaking an object can be described based on its intended use, or actual use.

For example the term baseball bat. It is a bat(stout stick or club) used to play baseball. If you kept and used the bat as a weapon you could describe it as a bat, or a home defense tool, or a club or cudgel as it no longer had any real relationship with the game of baseball.

In much the same way a rifle used in battle could correctly be called a battle rifle regardless of its chambering.

In the firearms community we generally use the terms battle rifle and assult rifle(or weapon) to differentiate between rifles that fire full power rifle cartridge vs intermediate rifle cartridges.

Last i checked words, individual words had specific definitions. You cant put those words together and create a new definition based on those couple words or a phrase, i think that is where the problem lies. You have to look at the words themselves, how they interact, and with English, the context in which they are being used.
 

Jim Watson

New member
Agree with Z

"Battle rifle" is a retronym, a term applied not at the time the items were widely used, but to distinguish them from the "assault rifle" format that now dominates as service rifles issued by almost every country.

And, since most users have gone small bore, the terms are both anachronistic.
 

zukiphile

New member
And, since most users have gone small bore, the terms are both anachronistic.

They do still describe things people use, but shifts in use over the decades are interesting.

I've read that Carlos Hathcock's "sniper rifle" was about a 2moa rifle and the scope he used was an off the shelf commercial optic. Lots of casual shooters wouldn't accept that today, and plenty of lads using an assault rifle will employ it at 500+ yards, a distance greater than many WWI trench to trench shots taken with real (battle caliber) rifles. Camp Perry has the 600 range at which people regularly compete with rifles no more powerful than assault rifles.
 

MarkCO

New member
I’m confused. I thought assault rifle was a purely political term as opposed to battle rifle which was a grouping term used by people in conversation, authors and the like to show rifles carried into battle where the gun and ammo are carried by a single person.

Assault rifle is a "politicized" term. Prior to the Clinton AWB, the term Assault rifle WAS actually used in common reference to the class of AR/AK style rifles firing intermediate cartridges by people in the firearms industry/community. There was also a "politically motivated" push to use the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" instead by various groups as a result.

Most of the current folks in the military refer to their firearms by their given designations of M4, M249, M17, M60, etc. Most firearms enthusiasts also refer to their firearms by specific make or model, not the catch all terms of assault rifle and battle rifle. Nor do we typically refer to our handguns as a pistol, when we are talking about them in everyday language. FWIW, the ATF defines only Pistol, Revolver, Rifle, Shotgun, Machine gun and AOW. It's been that way for a long time.

Battle rifle has been commonly used for the class of large frame full power cartridges. The new .277 Fury, in a semi-automatic, detachable mag firearm, falls into the battle rifle class, along with .308.

When the gun community gave in to the use/non-use of certain terms, we created confusion. We should have been out front with education.

I'll have to explain this in my next deposition on the subject I am sure as it came up in my last one.
 

Jim Watson

New member
Goes back to the dawn of auto rifles.
The German intermediate calibre rifles were originally designated MP, Machine Pistol; considered as a bigger submachine gun.
Ol Adolf and his propagandists thought Assault Rifle sounded better.
 

ballardw

New member
For example, there seems to be a fair bit of interchangeability over the designation "7.62".

On a completely different website that discusses some aspects of modern warfare as it relates to "simulations", I ran into a thread touting the "superiority of the 7.62".
So I had to ask which 7.62. I started with the 7.62x21 (Luger), x25 (Tokarev) and x38 (Nagant) pistol cartridges and then the litany of 7.62x39, x45 x51 x54 x63 (.30-06) ,x66 (.300 Win mag)and then branched out to other 7.62 calibers like the .303, .30-30, .30-40, 7.5 French and Swiss and few others.(Ignoring that Russian 7.62 are not the same bullet diameters as most 7.62 )

Didn't get much response...
 

zukiphile

New member
MarkCO said:
FWIW, the ATF defines only Pistol, Revolver, Rifle, Shotgun, Machine gun and AOW. It's been that way for a long time.

With only due regard to the ATF, it and congress may matter because they can ruin your life, but they aren't subject matter experts.

There are a handful of other useful descriptions that bring to mind with reasonable clarity what a writer.

We should have been out front with education.

Maybe. Or, as 44 suggests, the focus of the effort to confuse may have shifted elsewhere. I'm not certain that education would reduce the effort to shrink rights amongst those intent on shrinking them, but I like the impulse to get accurate information circulated as widely as possible.

Note the "hate speech" and "speech is violence" narratives on the topic of public speech. The people who argue these positions seem affirmatively resistant to accuracy.
 
Last edited:

MarkCO

New member
Maybe. Or, as 44 suggests, the focus of the effort to confuse may have shifted elsewhere. I'm not certain that education would reduce the effort to shrink rights amongst those intent on shrinking them

Probably. But if "we" had stood on "Shall not be infringed" instead of wordsmithing and backpedaling, we would be in a different place. We argue about "Assault Weapon", "Weapons of War", Sporting Use, Clips, etc. None of which are germane to the 2nd argument, but which takes up a lot of the rhetoric.
 

zukiphile

New member
MarkCO said:
We argue about "Assault Weapon", "Weapons of War", Sporting Use, Clips, etc. None of which are germane to the 2nd argument, but which takes up a lot of the rhetoric.

Fortunately, rhetoric is a renewable resource.

I respect the position that a proposal to take your rights isn't an opening to conversation, but a declaration of hostility. Rand had a quote about that I can't remember well enough to be fair to her. It should be remembered that Rand wasn't especially persuasive or politically consequential.

As much as I grok the frustration of seeing someone reason back and forth with a person stating an odious position, my temperament and training drive me to engage. For that, I need to know what their argument is, which parts they might hold genuinely, and which parts are opportunistic or even cynical rhetoric created to get a result rather than shed light. A person with an open mind and goodwill may be subject to persuasion, but only if the attempt is made.

Assault weapon and weapons of war are hard for me to see as anything other than tools to emotionally manipulate poorly informed and unfocused voters, including lots of gun owners, into poorly reasoned conclusions.

I'm glad we've the rhetoric of Heller and NYSRPA, and that there's been a lot of concealed carry work done in the states over the last several decades. I hope it provides a context in which more accurate and less manipulative language finds traction.
 

rickyrick

New member
We the people have gotten ourselves into this boat. We tolerated incremental infringements on our rights, many of which actually are in violation of the bill of rights. Unfortunately most of this is too late to reverse course, much less stop.
Many states have reversed violations of the constitution in regards to firearms, but were are only going to be more divided on such issues.

We have internal refugees inside the USA. Those with the means are moving to states that are more politically aligned to themselves. The divide is only going to deepen; which in turn, is going to cause the federal government to force the will of the dominant party, and the dominant view of the bureaucrats on to the people.

In our republic, the definition of a firearm should not matter in the least.
What you allow will continue.
 

44 AMP

Staff
Goes back to the dawn of auto rifles.
The German intermediate calibre rifles were originally designated MP, Machine Pistol; considered as a bigger submachine gun.
Ol Adolf and his propagandists thought Assault Rifle sounded better.

Close, but not quite spot on.

The dawn of auto rifles goes back to the WW I era, the most famous example is the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) and they were considered "light machineguns".

The German intermediate calibre rifles were originally designated MP, Machine Pistol;( Maschinen Pistole) This was done in order to actually make them. They had to, literally, be concealed from the Nazi govt.

In either late 40 or early 41 (not going to search for the precise date) but after the success of the Blitzkreig, Hitler ordered all further and future research and design of new rifles to be ended. They were winning the war, they didn't need new (or better) rifles, and "Ol Adolph" felt the resources would be better used on other things.

However, the prohibition against new rifles did NOT apply to new SMGs or research into them. They had come up the the concept for the intermediate power rifle cartridge, and were working on gun designs to use it. When the order to stop rifle research came out, they stopped working on "rifles" and "switched" to working on MPs (SMG) which was allowed. By redesignating their rifle designs as submachine guns, they could keep working on them, without (technically) violating Nazi directives.

By late 43 they had made small batches and sent some to the Eastern Front for combat testing, where they were performed well. Larger scale production began, and the gun was officially the MP43 and then the MP44.

According to stories (which vary slightly) the first Hitler learned of this was at a conference with some of his Ostfront commanders (sometime in early 44).

He asked them what they wanted, and what they needed more of, and was told to "give us more of the new rifles!!!"

WHAT NEW RIFLES???!!!!!

When Hitler was told about them, he went into one of his famous fits, enraged that his order (ending new rifle research) had been flouted.
(according to some, he was within a hair's breadth of having the project shut down and everyone shot for treason....)

The next day (or a couple days later) when he had cooled down some, the "new rifle" was demonstrated for Hitler, and after seeing what it was, and did, Hitler completely changed his mind and became enthusiastic about it.
"this is what I want! This is what we need! This will be my Sturmgewehr!"

And he ordered production accelerated and expanded. The designation was changed from MP (Maschinen Pistole) to Stg (Sturmgewehr). Several thousand Stg44s and Stg45 were made by the end of the war, and there were entire units so equipped, but fortunately for the Allies, not enough to alter the outcome of the war. Like the jet fighter, a superior design (or at least the beginning of one) but too little, too late, to prevent Allied victory.

Sturm is German for "storm". Like the English word "storm" its meaning depends on context. It is storm, as in weather, (thunderstorm, snow storm, etc) and it is storm in the military context, of "storming an objective" to attack with ferocity, as in a military assault.

Assault in "assault rifle" has nothing to do with the criminal assault of one person on another, but since it uses the same word, people who do not understand the context get confused and frequently misunderstand the term.

As for older folks sounding preachy, lecturing and overbearing, well, yes, some do. One of the reasons for that is that older guys know what they know, and know young people do not. Additionally there is often a bit of "you're wasting what little time I have left"....:rolleyes:

And, there is also that for many young folks there is a time in their lives (usually later teens, but not exclusively) where they "know everything" and rarely listen to instruction no matter how its delivered.

Note that all militaries know this and operate on the same general principles with their new recruits. They wear them out and beat them down, physically and mentally until they will accept instruction (orders) without question, learning and doing FIRST, and thinking about their own ideas and opinion's after, (if at all).

"Battle rifle" is a retronym, a term applied not at the time the items were widely used, but to distinguish them from the "assault rifle" format that now dominates as service rifles issued by almost every country.

This is entirely correct, the term was created by people in the firearms community as an easy way to identify the group of rifles in military use (past and present) that are NOT assault rifles. It was never an exclusive term, and while the rifles most commonly referred to as battle rifles are semi auto and fire a "full power" cartridge those are not defining criteria.

The only real defining criteria of a battle rifle is that it was a military arm, intended (and generally used) for combat, that does not meet the definition of assault rifle.

A bolt action 1903 Springfield is a battle rifle, so was the Trapdoor Springfield, in its day. The M1 Carbine would also fit under battle rifle, because while it fires an intermediate power round, it is semi auto. The M2 Carbine would be an assault rifle because it is select fire.

The M14, the FAL, the SVT 40 and some others are what we most often think of as battle rifles, but they aren't the only things allowed under that name, by a long shot.
 

Jim Watson

New member
The German intermediate calibre rifles were originally designated MP, Machine Pistol;( Maschinen Pistole) This was done in order to actually make them. They had to, literally, be concealed from the Nazi govt.


Like the jet fighter, a superior design (or at least the beginning of one) but too little, too late, to prevent Allied victory.

Thanks for the details.

I also once read that the General Staff wanted to take until 1945 for rearmament and modernization but Hitler and his cronies couldn't wait.
 

44 AMP

Staff
I also once read that the General Staff wanted to take until 1945 for rearmament and modernization but Hitler and his cronies couldn't wait.

The "Z-plan" was issued shortly after the Nazi takeover in 1933, stated that there would be no major war before 1945. This was used as the basis for German naval construction priorities (as well as other things) and left the Navy well "behind the curve" when full war broke out in 1939.

The land and air forces were less affected, but still went to war before they were "ready". The Blitzkrieg was successful, (for as long as it was) primarily because the nations attacked were generally even less prepared for war, and frequently in the field, less ably led.

Back to weapons terminology, One of the current buzzword terms used by the gun control crowd to describe semi automatics (primarily military LOOKING rifles) is "weapons of war" (which they aren't) and how "weapons of war have no place on our streets". I refer them to the Founders, and particularly the writings of Tench Coxe.

Weapons of war are the birthright of American citizens. They absolutely have a place. Shooting innocent people with them for fun or profit, absolutely does not.

This is where I have my biggest disagreement with gun banners. They seem to only focus on what people may have, and their only answer to stopping people from misusing things is to take those things away from everyone, including those of us who do not misuse them.

Their logic is horribly, inescapably flawed. They are proof of the old proverb that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
 

Scorch

New member
Certain words have specific meanings for a reason. You may sue someone in court, file a lawsuit, but people who say theya re going to "take them to court" are being vague and unclear. If you have a medical condition, you may have any one of the "osis" or "itis" condions, or you make have one of the "oma" conditions or "emia" conditions. Saying you're sick is too vague. Same with any trade or specialty, certain words have certain meanings. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to struggle with customers telling me that their "gun won't extract" when it is in fact a failure to eject, or vice versa. People don't want to sound like they don't know what they're talking about and in the end sound like they don't know what they're talking about. Same for people who try to define and describe things they know nothing about by using descriptions like "30 clip magazine" or "high powered rifle" or "full semi-automatic capable of firing 3,000 bullets per minute". Nonsense is nonsense. Words have meanings.
 

44 AMP

Staff
Words have meanings.

one of the bigger problems of our modern era (and probably was a problem in the dim past, but no one seems to remember it,,,:rolleyes:) is that we have allowed Congress (and other govt segments) to define or redefine the English language as they see fit.

Our current news media (and others) seem to revel in creating new meanings for existing established terms, as well as making up ridiculous compound words for situations. Adding the suffix "gate" to every potential political scandal has died down and hopefully fallen out of fashion lately but it's one example.

Hip, trendy, popular, and fashionable have, in my opinion, no place in technical terminology. All it does is confuse people accustomed to the standard established definitions.
 
Top