offensive terms

[ScottRiqui]

One thing that does bother me is how I was chided in a TFL forum for referring to 45 long Colt instead of 45 Colt to differentiate between a 45 Colt cartridge or revolver and a 45acp autoloader made by the Colt company. In many gun websites I see 45lc. What does that mean?

There was never a .45 "Short" Colt, so the "Long" designation is unnecessary. The terms ".45 Colt" and ".45 ACP" are sufficient to differentiate between the two rounds you're talking about. But as you've noticed, that hasn't kept ".45 Long Colt" from gaining widespread acceptance anyway.

If someone chimes into a discussion for no other reason than to correct someone's terminology **when the context of the discussion makes the meaning of the word 100% clear**, then I think that falls under the latter category.

How would you feel if you went into Best Buy and asked to look at the Remington electric razors, and the clerk smugly replied "We don't have any of those - perhaps you mean Remington electric "shavers"?

Maybe he's an aficionado of barber's implements, maybe it's his consuming passion and he spends hours every day on the internet discussing razors and shavers with other like-minded folks. Maybe he's a stickler for clarity and correct terminology.

 

[Rampant_Colt]

...........

 

[jmortimer]

"There was never a .45 "Short" Colt, so the "Long" designation is unnecessary."

I will for sure defer to Paco Kelly from leverguns.com:

"John Taffin, has been trying to change my position for decades....and John may be correct, as all of you may. But in this, I am unrepentant...why? Because among other reasons, I have a full box of 45 Short Colt ammo produced in 1883 and that got me to really investigate! Not Schofield...but “45 Short Colt” Ammunition.....(230 grain bullet/hollow base/28 grains B.P.) People back then called them LONG or SHORT Colts when making purchases......so do I today."

 

[KMAX]

How would you feel if you went into Best Buy and asked to look at the Remington electric razors, and the clerk smugly replied "We don't have any of those - perhaps you mean Remington electric "shavers"?

I think I would probably tell the clerk "Oh, well I will go to a store that does have them."

As for the 45 long Colt issue, it is a very common term among folks who are not sticklers for for technical correctness. Most of the terms that have been mentioned in the above posts are also common for less technically minded folks. Growing up, everybody I knew referred to automatic rifles and automatic handguns. If we were talking about actual automatic firearms we would have said full auto. I had a (almost) full auto 22lr once when a firing pin broke on my sem-auto. It would fire several rounds in one burst.

The point is what is common terminology in not always correct terminology.

 

[BlueTrain]

Oh, I have lots of things that bother me. One of them is people's use of "1911." True, Colt made automatics for the army, which they, the army, called the Model of 1911 and later the "Pistol, automatic, Cal. 45, M1911." That's the designation right out of the manual, right after the M1911A1. Colt no longer lists one under that name, though they happily refer to the Model 1911. They do continue to have the Government Model chambered in .45 ACP. That stands for Automatic Colt Pistol. It's an automatic. Beware of imitations and patent infringements.

The British used to call their revolvers "Pistols, revolver." Their bases were covered, mostly.

I think gunman is a perfectly satisfactory word, if that's what he is. Gunner, of course, has a different meaning. However, one never hears pistolero any more, not where I live anyway. Maybe in the southwest it's still current. And I doubt anyone says gunslinger either. Sniper is suitable, too, if that's what he is, and we went through something with a pair of snipers a few years but they got caught.

The thing is, the words and expressions people use are what the language is, not what a select body of professors in goatees say it is. But English is, you know, just about the only language that has no "academy" to say what it is. So everyone's off the hook. Even today in the paper there was mention of a USO scare in Washington, DC, about 1952, but that's not what people called them then. The term was "flying saucer." Seen any lately?

Sometimes I suspect people of using highly technical terms when they don't want to be understood. No one here would do that, would they?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm a professor-scientist, so I refuse to answer that. I suppose our lawyers can use simple language to (oh wait...).

The assault rifle debate basically was to differentiate between folks thinking civilians had access to full auto versions. That made some sense to clarify as to impending laws.

Rounds, bullets, clips, magazines, catridges - I wouldn't flip out.

 

[Clifford L. Hughes]

JASON Ipwa:

I dislike the term Saturday Night Special. There is no such animal. If you value our freedom to own guns you shoud change your mind on the term assult rifle. Like you, the whole anti-gun society loves it too: they use it to instill fear in the electroate. An assult rifle if a fully automatic weapon, not a semi-automatic rifle.

Srmper Fi.

Gunnery Sergeant
Clifford L. Hughes
USMC Retired

 

[ScottRiqui]

I *am* happy to see that everyone here on TFL seems comfortable with using "ft-lbs" as a unit of muzzle energy. I've seen some pretty "heated" discussions in other places where people can't understand how something that (on the surface) appears to be a unit of torque can also be a unit of energy.

 

[Tom Servo]

Rounds, bullets, clips, magazines, catridges - I wouldn't flip out.

I disagree a bit. Many of us are ambassadors for the culture in some respect. We impart knowledge, and sometimes hopefully wisdom, to outsiders and new shooters. Part of that should be getting the terminology right.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Many of us are ambassadors for the culture in some respect. We impart knowledge, and sometimes hopefully wisdom, to outsiders and new shooters. Part of that should be getting the terminology right.

I agree for the most part - I try to use the correct terminology whenever I can. If nothing else, maybe a non-enthusiast will pick up the right terminology if by no other method than sheer mimicry.

But I don't go out of my way to correct people unless there's a legitimate danger of confusion. In particular, it bothers me when people jump down non-enthusiasts' throats for saying "silencer" instead of "suppressor". It's not like there are two different devices out there that people are mixing up, and many of the applicable laws (including the NFA definition itself) use the term "silencer". As far as I'm concerned, anyone who gets their panties in a twist over "silencer" is just being pedantic.

 

[hogdogs]

I cringe to hear an AR in the TOO SMALL TO HUNT BIG GAME .223 referred to as a "High Powered Rifle"... Obviously none ever shot granny's .30-06 deer rifle...

Brent

 

[Bud Helms]

I have sort of gone soft on my insistence on using correct terminology in most cases.

Clip vs. magazine: I use magazine, but clip doesn't bother me these days.

But when it comes to components, as a reloader, there is common usage out there that is just plain wrong and misusage doesn't change that.

For example, "caps" for "primers". Another is bullets for cartridges. These things are not the same and can't be interchanged.

Some that don't seem to matter, at least to me: "rounds" used to mean "cartridges" OR "bullets". I bought a box of 20 rounds of .30-30. Or The round was sent down range. Another is referring to a given weight of powder in a handload as a "charge".

But the comment I see so often in threads about terminology that simply amazes me goes something like, "Communication is what it's all about, so the exact terminmology doesn't really matter."

Just sit for a minute and think about that one.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Another is referring to a given weight of powder in a handload as a "charge".

I've never seen anyone corrected on that score - what makes "charge" incorrect?

 

[Tuzo]

Most favorite offensive terms

"Tactical" for everything from clothing to firearms. "Sniper" is also silly as in "I'm building a sniper rifle," which means painting it black and mounting a scope with tall adjustment knobs. In fact, "tactical" is metamorphosing to "sniper" as the latest fad.

How does one "build" a rifle? With tactical super glue I assume. More likely a rifle is assembled from parts.

This is fun.

 

[ScottRiqui]

How does one "build" a rifle? With tactical super glue I assume. More likely a rifle is assembled from parts.

Eh, I've heard "build" as both a noun and a verb, referring everything from assembling engines to computers, even when there was no fabrication involved.

I agree about "tactical" and "sniper", though. And the worst part is that it's often the enthusiasts doing it, not just the media or the rest of the uninformed masses.

 

[KMAX]

Tactical!

Thinking about building a tactical coffee cup. Is Duracoat good for this?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I see someone started a "what is an assault rifle" thread but my question goes in a bit different direction.

I see many people take offense to some terminology when it comes to firearms such as.

High powered
Assault rifles
Assault pistols - I believe this was used in the giffords shooting
Weapons
Automatic

And so on and so forth. There is no terminology that I personally find offensive. I have embraced assault rifle I find it to be a useful term. What terms do you find offensive and why?

I don't consider those terms to be offensive, but they ARE usually misused in the media and by the anti-gun crowd, and that's why I cringe when I see them. Functional (media) definitions:

High-powered -- any firearm larger than .22 Short

Assault rifle -- Any rifle with a pistol grip and a scary-looking magazine that hangs down below the action. Almost always semi-automatic. (The real definition would be a fully automatic or burst fire rifle or carbine.)

Assault pistol -- Anything other than a revolver that's not an assault rifle. (The real definition is a fully-automatic firearm that can be fired one-handed, like a mini-Uzi.)

Weapons -- Guns, knives, swords, nunchuks, stun guns, brass knuckles, bare knuckles ... The reality is that the NRA gets its organizational knickers in a twist if instructors refer to firearms as weapons, for no reason other than that the anti-gun folks refer to guns as weapons and the NRA doesn't like to use the opposition's vocabulary. The truth is, firearms ARE weapons, and this is one point on which I very much differ from the NRA. (I do, however, play their silly word game when teaching their classes.)

Automatic -- any firearm that ejects "shells" when fired. In other words, anything other than a revolver or a single-shot firearm.



It all comes down to Brinksmanship. The theory is that he who controls the vocabulary controls the argument. So we try not to play into the antis' hands by using their improper terms in disputing their silly statements. It isn't about being "offended," it's about taking control of the high ground in the debate.

 

[Gunplummer]

.45 Automatic

Indeed, somewhere there is a .45 Automatic. I was given a box of mixed ammunition and there was a full box of .45 Automatic ammunition in it. If I remember correctly it was Remington. I have no idea what it fit at the time(Going back 35-40 years), but it was rimless and not .45 ACP. I did pistol and revolver work but not as much as a lot of other guys. Anybody know what that was?

I am pretty tough skinned as far as nomenclature of parts and such goes. So what? I get wound tighter by people that feel the need to correct other people. I was at the range (Minding my own business) with a .45 pistol. A cop and his buddies came over, asked what I had and I answered ".45 Automatic". Yeah, I got the whole history lesson from a clown I was sure could not even field strip one. He was such an idiot that even some of his buddies looked embarrassed. Anyway, I suffered it like any businessman would and pretty much still do. Forget about it, it really means nothing anyway.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have had people here called out on the misuse of terminology who who buttress themselves with the argument of "Well you know what I meant." In other words, incorrect terminology is fine when it suits us. However, my favorite all time cover argument for misuse of terminology is, "Well, that is just semantics!" Funny thing, you can't have language without semantics and so discounting another person's word use critique as being 'just semantics' is rather nonsensical since the conveyance of information properly is all semantics.

Good post, DNS. Much too long to quote the entire thing, but I pretty much agree with all of it. Language is our medium of communication. Language is comprised of words, and words (are supposed to) have meanings. If everyone fudges and waffles on what words mean, then we no longer have communication ... we have noise.

 

[ScottRiqui]

Indeed, somewhere there is a .45 Automatic. I was given a box of mixed ammunition and there was a full box of .45 Automatic ammunition in it. If I remember correctly it was Remington. I have no idea what it fit at the time(Going back 35-40 years), but it was rimless and not .45 ACP. I did pistol and revolver work but not as much as a lot of other guys. Anybody know what that was?

There was a cartridge called ".45 Rimless" - the Colt Model 1905 was marked as such, but I thought that was just an earlier name for what became .45 ACP.