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

[dakota.potts]

Something I've been thinking about. I notice a lot of gun owners get touchy when you call their AR/AK/FAL etc. an assault rifle.

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?

Further, are not many of our own rifles more accurate, more durable, and more specialized than standard issue military rifles? I've heard accuracy specs for military weapons are close to 4 MOA. How many 1/2 MOA groups have we seen posted out of highly tuned and specialized rifles on here? How many rifles set up to fire high volumes and switch quickly between targets from 25 to 500 yards? Rifles built for CQB and other purposes?

The other objection that I note often is that it's not an assault rifle until it assaults something. They suggest we call them modern sporting rifles or defense rifles. How can it be called a defense rifle if it's not going to be used to defend? Is it a sporting rifle if I don't sport with it and just stick it in my truck for SHTF? Is a hunting rifle a hunting rifle or a varmint rifle a varmint rifle if I never hunt or varmint with it? Does that reduce them all to target rifles? It's really easy to argue away the utility of a weapon when all you have are target rifles. "Well, if it's only used for target shooting, now you truly have no reason to have a 30 round magazine"

I'm a big second amendment supporter. I believe assault rifles are our right as a nation. I'm curious, though, why people are so afraid of the word? Why are they so afraid to say "I own an assault rifle"? Do they not think that they have the right to do so?

Frankly, I consider other terminology to be specious at best and easily defeated or reasoned away. "If it's only for sporting, why does it need so much firepower?" "Why do you need 30 rounds for defense?" "Why do you need a hypersonic military round for hunting and shooting paper targets?"

Even if they're not assault rifles under the example set by the sturmgewehr, are they not military rifles when used in the same configuration as the military and even often set up with the same mil-spec parts? Are they not, at the least, battle rifles? Will it make a lick of difference when someone figures this out and starts calling them battle rifles and the media cries for those to be banned next?

Just some idle musings. All civil opinions are welcome on the subject.

 

[Chris_B]

Don't forget, my 1943 Inland M1 carbine is also a so-called 'assault rifle'. So is my 1944 Springfield M1 rifle.

My problem with the term "assault rifle" is that it strongly implies that the intended use is to harm. In other words, a person who owns one is likely to be violent and is to be feared. It's a class of "weapon" that you should fear. It is bad. You're not fighting the Nazis are you? Then why do you "need" one?

Attaching a modifier like "assault" to an inanimate object is to produce an intended result. It's already a "rifle" and any dolt with a room-temperature IQ can see that it can be used to harm. Then again I can harm with bleach and ammonia. Why then do we not hear about "assault bleach"? Or an "assault machete"?

Why don't we read about "Speeding Ferraris" or "Drunk Driving Wine"? Why don't we even have those terms? If your van were to be known as a "Molester Van" in the media, would you be happy? No, because the term identifies you as a person having ill intent by virtue of your vehicle.

Questions like "why do you need such firepower?" are derivative. Why does a person "need" a car that can go 80 mph? Why does a person "need" to buy a case of beer? Why does a person "need" to buy lottery tickets or buy green paint? "Need" as an argument is a non-starter to me. Why does the person asking "need" that brand of shoes? Why does he or she "need" an iPhone?

Isn't the legal speed limit enough? Why go 80 mph? Isn't one can of beer enough? If you "need" a case you must have a drinking problem. Why do you "need" that lottery ticket? Shouldn't you donate that extra money to the less fortunate? Isn't white paint good enough for the likes of you? Etc, ad naseum.

When a person argues that you don't "need" a thing in the USA, be suspicious. What they are saying is they don't think you should have it, which is not the same scenario. The qualifier is not "need". The qualifier is that their opinion is better than yours on what's right and wrong for you to have.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

It's really simple a civilian model AR-15, or an AK clone like a WASR-10 do not have the capability to fire fully automatic, or burst fire. In order to meet the definition of an assault rifle the rifle must have the capability to fire full automatic or burst fire. Whether the shooter uses that capability is irrelevant to the weapons ability to be used that way.

Why would you want your rifle lumped into a category that the anti-gun crowd wants to ban? hell, if we can't use proper nomenclature for thse types of firearms how do we expect the antis to ever get it right.

There are many examples of semi-automatic battle rifles. They are NOT by definition assault rifles.

I correct people all the time that want to talk about assault rifles and how they should be banned. If more pro-gun people would point out the distinct differences and the mountain of paperwork necessary to even own a true assault rifle maybe the antis would stop this part of their rhetoric.

 

[dakota.potts]

SocialAnarchist,
Do you think the situation would become any more different if they became more properly referred to as battle rifles and then we had the "battle rifle ban" threat? Serious question.

 

[jeager106]

Battle rifle = assault rifle = military rifle etc.
My 1750 replica jeager .58 bore flint lock was the "assault rifle" of
it's day.
As was the smooth bore flint lock musket & so on.
I kinda like Modern Sporting Rifle myself.

 

[SaxonPig]

Modern "assault rifle" fires an intermediate cartridge (5.56, 7.62x39, etc) with full auto capability. A full size cartridge (ie 7.62x51) is technically a "battle rifle."

I don't know who made these up.

"Assault weapon" is a term created by anti-gun press and politicians.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

I think semantics is everything and the fact that the term assault rifle has become the chant of the antis should be a lesson learned for pro-gun owners to NEVER refer to a semi-automatic rifle, no matter what it looks like, as an assault rifle.

Why call it a battle rifle? It is a military surplus, or military styled, semi-automatic rifle.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

jeager106

Battle rifle = assault rifle = military rifle etc.

WRONG!

My 1750 replica jeager .58 bore flint lock was the "assault rifle" of
it's day.

WRONG AGAIN!

As was the smooth bore flint lock musket & so on.

WRONG YET AGAIN!

I kinda like Modern Sporting Rifle myself.

Nowhere in the following definition does any of the rifles you mention above meet the definition of an asault rifle. Frankly, the lack of understanding of what a true assault rifle is hurts all of us that want to own either an AR-15, WASR-10, or any other semi-automatic version of a military rifle that in its military form is a true assault rifle.

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, fully automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Note the difference between the assault rifle and the battle rifle. Assault rifles use smaller cartridges and are used at closer ranges than battle rifles. The larger sized rifle cartridges used in battle rifles make fully automatic fire more difficult. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed and held; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger regardless of how long the trigger is held. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

 

[1stmar]

SA I don't know where you got that definition from but I will tell you, there are plenty of liberal interpretations of the term assualt rifle that do not conform those criteria. A look at many of the gun laws and banned rifles will confirm that.

 

[Uncle Buck]

"Assault" is a verb. A verb denotes action. Until the action happens, it does not apply.

More people are killed and injured in auto accident in the USA than are injured or killed by guns. Should we then label those cars assault vehicles?

We have let people dictate to us what terms we are suppose to use to describe something we usually know more about than they do.

 

[Machineguntony]

I am not a fan of the term 'assault rifle'.

I like the term 'host' for my RDIAS, and then use the the proper term, 'machine gun'.

Yeah!

 

[Pond James Pond]

"Assault" is a verb. A verb denotes action.

It is also a noun and in this case used in a compound noun.

I don't think linguistics are the answer to reversing the use of this term.

This is a PR war first and foremost.

Regardless what the Pro group claim, this is an argument that is equally emotionally based on both sides and given that the pro gun crowd are often playing a reactive game of catch-up to the anti's latest campaign, then the anti's are dictating the terms of engagement to use a military metaphor.
This very post is proof of that, IMHO.

That is what I believe the pro group need to address to redress the balance in their favour.

 

[Justice06RR]

Its always fun when we discuss topics regarding assault rifles/weapons, so I'll throw more wood to the fire and stir the pot.

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, fully automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Note the difference between the assault rifle and the battle rifle. Assault rifles use smaller cartridges and are used at closer ranges than battle rifles. The larger sized rifle cartridges used in battle rifles make fully automatic fire more difficult. Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed and held; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger regardless of how long the trigger is held. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Many of the terms we are discussing are relative based on who is using them (or who made them up).

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.

What is an "intermediate" cartridge? Where is the line drawn between an intermediate cartridge and a large cartridge? Do we consider 5.56/223 and 7.62x39 "intermediate", while 308/7.62NATO a large cartridge?

The Military M249SAW is an "Assault Rifle" which fires 5.56NATO rounds. the M240B which fires the larger 7.62NATO is also an Assault Rifle .
Same with the FN SCAR16 and SCAR17. Both are Assault Rifles that are capable of Select Fire (in that configuration of course, not the Civilian Semiauto only).

Are we confused yet?

IMO the ability to shoot Select Fire is what makes a firearm an "Assault Rifle", not the caliber.

-------

To the OP, you are correct that most soldiers today are trained to use semiauto fire even if they have Select Fire weapons. A very good friend of mine is a Marine Vet and also currently a Deputy in my area. We talk a lot about guns and he confirms that they mostly use Semiauto even when he was in the Marines. Machine gunners are the ones who use Full Auto for suppression and Area Fire.

Even in his current job as a Deputy they are currently issued M16's converted to Semiauto only! He showed me his M16 at his house last weekend. It has the "AUTO" marking on the Selector, but it has been converted to SEMI only. You can't even turn that selector to AUTO since their department doesn't use it.

Reasoning for that is Liability of Select Fire weapons in the civilian setting. I'm assuming cost of ammo is also a big factor. Another reason he told me, from a rifleman's standpoint, is that if you shoot Select Fire i.e. 3rd burst, If the first bullet misses, then you waste the 2 other bullets in that burst.

There you have it. That's basically one anecdotal evidence I can provide. If anyone is interested, I can even take a pic or video of his issued M16 that is converted to semiauto only.

 

[jmr40]

I don't think linguistics are the answer to reversing the use of this term.

Linguistics are the key. Words often have strong meanings and they change over time. We no longer "Kill" the game we hunt. We "Harvest" the game. There are dozens of other examples over the years.

There is no practical difference between a military M-16 and civilian AR-15. There is also no practical difference between my AR and someone else's Mini-14, Remington 740, Browning BAR, Remington 1100, or Ruger 10-22. I could go on.

For too long we have let the gun control crowd set the tone and define OUR rifles. It was the gun control crowd that decided to make up the name "Assault Rifle" and apply that name to one particular rifle while they decided to call all other rifles "Sporting Arms". They all function the same and do the same thing.

I'm all for shooters taking control of the situation. I like the term I've been seeing lately labeling AR's as "Modern Sporting Rifles". I think the term is more accurate and will not be as scary to others.

Remember, less than 1/2 of all Americans are gun owners. Only about 25%, or less, are strongly involved in the shooting sports. Probably less than 10% are strongly in favor of strong gun control. That leaves 70% or so of Americans who are pretty neutral. If having a less scary name for one of our guns is going to influence public opinion I'll call it anything needed.

 

[45_auto]

There is no practical difference between a military M-16 and civilian AR-15.

If there's no practical difference then how come an M16 will cost me $16,000 and take me a year to get while I can get an AR15 about anywhere for $600?

Seems that there must be some "practical difference" that drives the civilian price difference between the two.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Linguistics are the key. Words often have strong meanings and they change over time. We no longer "Kill" the game we hunt. We "Harvest" the game. There are dozens of other examples over the years.

My point about linguistics was that trying to disarm a term by dissecting its linguistic components (ie is it a verb, is it a noun), was not particularly useful and distracted from the real issue.

As you've described it, then I would agree as it would seem to go with my view of this being a PR contest.

Hence why I too believe the following is key, yet I don't get a sense of it happening.

For too long we have let the gun control crowd set the tone and define OUR rifles.

As an outsider, I see a lot of rhetoric from the pro crowd trying to justify their stance with references to the constitution, to their rights etc. All this may well be valid, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to carry much weight with the undecided masses: they don't seem to see this as an ideological issue, but as a purely practical one. On top of that the practical details they are being fed, for the most part, seem to be only the negatives. On the one hand we see distraught family members of a gun shot victim and then, detached from that we see someone saying that they own a dozen guns because it is their right to do so.

Side by side, which carries more emotional weight with the masses?

The sad thing is that it may well be that one of the pro gun advocate's family members is only alive because they'd had access to a gun when it as needed. That is a story that seldom gets told.

All that is a little off topic and for that I apologise, but it is still part and parcel of the issue in the OP.
Perhaps showing more of these modern guns in a everyday, rural setting might help promote the modern sporting rifle image, such as people hunting with one, instead of the ubiquitous bolt gun.

 

[loic]

When I was in the military, back in 88 / 1990 none of the weapon used were called assault "insert name of the weapon here" my ar is just a semi auto rifle, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

By flapping your arms and running around in circles, you admit that civilians shouldn't own military type guns.

Mine isn't - it's a modern sporting rifle!! Please don't take away my NICE gun - pretty please -

If it is defined not as a military type gun and for sport - then reasonable restrictions do apply for SPORT. You don't need the military like options for reasonable sport and games.

The argument should be that we should be able to own such, not that they are bad (which you admit subconsciously in your linguisitc arm flapping).

Also, it is the physical appearance of the gun that is the issue - the name argument is meaningless - you think it is because of the choir whine of "I have a nice gun". No one on the other side buys that for a moment.

 

[Sierra280]

My 1750 replica jeager .58 bore flint lock was the "assault rifle" of
it's day.

I think the blunderbuss was more like the assault rifle of that time

How about we just call them what they are: Rifles. If they don't have the look that is marketed as evil and you don't identify them as 'assault weapons' how many people really know the difference. When new friends or neighbors come in and see my gun cabinet I hear all the 'assault, sniper, and military weapon' comments, but they are always talking about the black, synthetic stocked, big scopes with sunshades, long barreled target rifles (all bolt guns). My Ruger no1 in the front, never gets a comment on the beautiful wood, and the last comment someone made on the wood stocked M1a (sitting next to the black target rifles) was 'that looks old.'

Most people don't really know much about guns, let them make up their own minds before you start giving guns evil labels/names.

 

[wogpotter]

Short answer:
"Because it's missing the nasty switch position on the safety/selector."

Assault rifles (not assault weapons which is a fake made up term) have selective fire & the AR15 is semi-auto only.