Steel Horse Rider
Member
I like the term "Utility Rifle".
A Motion - re: The Term "Assault Rifle"
- Thread starter HoosierQ
- Start date
- Status
"never adopt the adversary's language. There's a reason they want to broaden the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" and we shouldn't help them."
I also agree on this. "Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon" are terms far too vague and dangerous to civil rights. Vague laws are always bad laws, and cause massive social problems as well. Confusing the uneducated on what "Semi Auto" and what is a machine gun is clearly the Anti-gun agenda. The Anti-gun rights groups want more control (and power) and less rights for you, that's it.
Whatever the correct term is it should be descriptive to prevent confusion (confusion is always exploited by liars and con-artists) yet not threatening or as an "inside joke" to turn-off or discourage "newbies".
Evil Black Rifle is an inside joke that discourages and sadly even frightens the skittish. Not a good start to educate the ignorant.
"Semi-Auto military rifle clone" is descriptive, but kind of falls off the tongue and isn't catchy.
"Modern Sporting Rifle" sounds good to me.
Any other serious suggestions? No jokes now....
I also agree on this. "Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon" are terms far too vague and dangerous to civil rights. Vague laws are always bad laws, and cause massive social problems as well. Confusing the uneducated on what "Semi Auto" and what is a machine gun is clearly the Anti-gun agenda. The Anti-gun rights groups want more control (and power) and less rights for you, that's it.
Whatever the correct term is it should be descriptive to prevent confusion (confusion is always exploited by liars and con-artists) yet not threatening or as an "inside joke" to turn-off or discourage "newbies".
Evil Black Rifle is an inside joke that discourages and sadly even frightens the skittish. Not a good start to educate the ignorant.
"Semi-Auto military rifle clone" is descriptive, but kind of falls off the tongue and isn't catchy.
"Modern Sporting Rifle" sounds good to me.
Any other serious suggestions? No jokes now....
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
But "Assault Rifle" isn't a vague term at all. It is very specific.
It is simply universally misapplied in the press.
"Assault Weapon" has no correct definition at all, so 'vague' certainly seems to apply. 'Ambiguous' would as well.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
In the course of the past twenty years or so I've found myself all over the board on this subject:
1) The term "assault rifle" has been in common use for at least two decades now, and it doesn't appear to be going away. The non-gun owning public loves this term, and even many among us use it.
2) I used to use the term assault weapon quite a bit, since it was descriptive to many people. But, I have to agree with those who say that such a term does us no good. A rifle isn't an "assault" rifle any more than a baseball bat can be an "assault bat". The design features of a rifle does not determine how it is used.
3) I had previously done as others have mentioned in this thread, and referred to full-auto rifles as assault rifles, and semi-autos as look-alikes. I no longer tend to do this either since (again) the design of a rifle has no bearing on how it is used by its owner. Whether or not it is ever used to assault anyone or anything is a question that can't be answered by a name. I don't refer to my bigger knives as "assault knives", so why refer to any rifle as an assault rifle?
4) I have used the comparison of semi-auto vs full-auto guns when trying to describe the differences between civilian and military weapons when talking to anti-gun folks, but I still steer clear of the "assault" term.
If we want a term to describe these guns, it probably ought to be as close to the truth as possible, without a mention of some politically hair-raising terms. For example:
MASA: Magazine-accepting Semi-automatic
or
MFSL: Magazine-fed Self-loading
1) The term "assault rifle" has been in common use for at least two decades now, and it doesn't appear to be going away. The non-gun owning public loves this term, and even many among us use it.
2) I used to use the term assault weapon quite a bit, since it was descriptive to many people. But, I have to agree with those who say that such a term does us no good. A rifle isn't an "assault" rifle any more than a baseball bat can be an "assault bat". The design features of a rifle does not determine how it is used.
3) I had previously done as others have mentioned in this thread, and referred to full-auto rifles as assault rifles, and semi-autos as look-alikes. I no longer tend to do this either since (again) the design of a rifle has no bearing on how it is used by its owner. Whether or not it is ever used to assault anyone or anything is a question that can't be answered by a name. I don't refer to my bigger knives as "assault knives", so why refer to any rifle as an assault rifle?
4) I have used the comparison of semi-auto vs full-auto guns when trying to describe the differences between civilian and military weapons when talking to anti-gun folks, but I still steer clear of the "assault" term.
If we want a term to describe these guns, it probably ought to be as close to the truth as possible, without a mention of some politically hair-raising terms. For example:
MASA: Magazine-accepting Semi-automatic
or
MFSL: Magazine-fed Self-loading
1. The issue is whether a rifle is full auto or semi. The uninformed think that the guns in question maybe be full auto.
2. I think the horse has left the barn. The semi versions are derivatives of the military guns for the most part.
The language has evolved away from the gun world's view of precision. The derivatives of the M-16, M4, AK military lines will be called assault rifles and there is nothing you can do about it besides complain on the internet.
The distinction between full and semi should be made clear in debate but won't have that much force as it is now mentioned that you can shoot a semi very quickly. Rampages with semis indicate their lethality anyway.
I opine that we should emphasize our right to have such guns instead of trying to use language to make them look less dangerous. Won't work. Just a choir argument having as much impact as correcting a commentator who wants to ban 100 round clips. NO, it's a magazine - so what.
You might not like it but the appearance of the gun far outweights what you call it in the current debates. The use in rampages washes away complaining about the term.
Make the case why we should have them - that's where the fight is.
2. I think the horse has left the barn. The semi versions are derivatives of the military guns for the most part.
The language has evolved away from the gun world's view of precision. The derivatives of the M-16, M4, AK military lines will be called assault rifles and there is nothing you can do about it besides complain on the internet.
The distinction between full and semi should be made clear in debate but won't have that much force as it is now mentioned that you can shoot a semi very quickly. Rampages with semis indicate their lethality anyway.
I opine that we should emphasize our right to have such guns instead of trying to use language to make them look less dangerous. Won't work. Just a choir argument having as much impact as correcting a commentator who wants to ban 100 round clips. NO, it's a magazine - so what.
You might not like it but the appearance of the gun far outweights what you call it in the current debates. The use in rampages washes away complaining about the term.
Make the case why we should have them - that's where the fight is.
I personally don't use the term "military style" because it's a misnomer.
These are real, as issued military weapons:
Whereas my 22LR is a "military style assault rifle with no conceivable sporting purpose"
I've had 6 real, as issued military weapons shipped directly to my front door in the last year. Most people simply call them military surplus, or mil-surp. I suppose calling my 22LR a M4 clone wouldn't too horribly innacurate, since it looks like one but is functionally identical to a Ruger 10/22.
beatledog7
Member
We should certainly not adopt the language of our adversary, but we must also be judicious in our own language.
We damage our cause by using a term like "main battle rifle" as many AR/AK owners do. I'm not talking about a military context here. Many die-hard preppers use the term; perhaps they're veterans and simply call their civilian AR/AK style rifles what they got used to calling the one they carried in Iraq.
I hear a civilian use that term, and I think, "With whom are you planning to go into battle?" The anti-gun crowd and the sensationalizing media wouldn't know or care about the term's context. They would simply pounce on it, maybe even preferring it to "assault rifle."
It is the military appearance of a rifle that gets the antis are in a wad, so one wonders why gun makers haven't figured out a way to make these rifles look "tame." Is it because the people who buy them are just as enamored by how they look as the antis are frightened by how they look? Would AR/AK buyers be happy to own a rifle that looks like your grandpa's Winchester M70 but has AR capability?
I don't think so. I think we're as guilty about focusing on how they look as the antis are.
We damage our cause by using a term like "main battle rifle" as many AR/AK owners do. I'm not talking about a military context here. Many die-hard preppers use the term; perhaps they're veterans and simply call their civilian AR/AK style rifles what they got used to calling the one they carried in Iraq.
I hear a civilian use that term, and I think, "With whom are you planning to go into battle?" The anti-gun crowd and the sensationalizing media wouldn't know or care about the term's context. They would simply pounce on it, maybe even preferring it to "assault rifle."
It is the military appearance of a rifle that gets the antis are in a wad, so one wonders why gun makers haven't figured out a way to make these rifles look "tame." Is it because the people who buy them are just as enamored by how they look as the antis are frightened by how they look? Would AR/AK buyers be happy to own a rifle that looks like your grandpa's Winchester M70 but has AR capability?
I don't think so. I think we're as guilty about focusing on how they look as the antis are.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And yet, the reasons why an AK or an AR or whatever other military weapon look the way they do has very, very little to do with desiring a particular aesthetic, but rather because of placing utilitarian function above all opinions of aesthetics.
And the form they hold works just as well, and just as advantageously for a civilian using an AR-15 as it does for a soldier using an M-16 or M-4.
An AR-15 rifle reconfigured to look like a Winchester M70 would not WORK like an AR-15 is supposed to work. It would not balance the same, it would not shoulder the same way. It would not be as useful for position rifle competition because it is not as ergonomic and doesn't fit the human form as well, and so forth.
So you can't really separate the physical characteristics from the aesthetics like that.
Do some shooters just buy whatever the military uses because they think it looks "cool?" Sure. Do many buy what the military uses (or some improved version of that) because it works better? Absolutely. Is there any substantive value in parsing between the two? I seriously doubt it.
And in the end, remember, the 2nd Amendment isn't about "sporting" uses anyway, so it is absolutely appropriate that civilians own and use MILITARY hardware.
Excellent point! I've always said that the tendency to miminize the lethality of weapons protected by the 2nd Amend. is a big mistake.
The British and Australian gun folks tried that. They decried humanoid targets in the handgun shooting sports. They argued that guns were 'their sport'.
Now they have the strictest gun laws.
Oh, please don't take my AR - it's really a nice gun.
The British and Australian gun folks tried that. They decried humanoid targets in the handgun shooting sports. They argued that guns were 'their sport'.
Now they have the strictest gun laws.
Oh, please don't take my AR - it's really a nice gun.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Modern Sporting Rifle or MSR is the term being batted about by the NSSF now.
http://www.nssf.org/MSR/
Probably a good term, as a gun-grabbing politition would have a hard time trying to justify outlawing a modern sporting rifle.
rc
http://www.nssf.org/MSR/
Probably a good term, as a gun-grabbing politition would have a hard time trying to justify outlawing a modern sporting rifle.
rc
beatledog7
Member
Sam, I get that form follows function. And I completely agree that 2A is about people owning and carrying guns, not about hunting and target sports. But here's where the problem lies for the antis:
Like it or not, the anti-gunner associates the AR format with soldiers and killing. The antis read what I quoted and think, "So as a civilian you want this gun so you will be able to do what soldiers do, which is kill people." They're wrong, but that's what they think.
If a company could design, build, and market a rifle that does what an AR does as well as an AR but looks less menacing to the anti-gunner (not necessarily like a Model 70), how many current AR shoppers would buy it instead of an AR? How many would shun it because it looks wrong?
Aesthetics matter to gun buyers. If you doubt it, scan this and other gun forums for photos of all sorts of firearms that people ooh and ah over.
Like it or not, the anti-gunner associates the AR format with soldiers and killing. The antis read what I quoted and think, "So as a civilian you want this gun so you will be able to do what soldiers do, which is kill people." They're wrong, but that's what they think.
If a company could design, build, and market a rifle that does what an AR does as well as an AR but looks less menacing to the anti-gunner (not necessarily like a Model 70), how many current AR shoppers would buy it instead of an AR? How many would shun it because it looks wrong?
Aesthetics matter to gun buyers. If you doubt it, scan this and other gun forums for photos of all sorts of firearms that people ooh and ah over.
No, for the same reason I won't call magazines clips. The only reason that the anti gun people have adopted the term assault rifle is so they can lie and confuse people who don't know about guns, there are many anti gun people that I have seen that actually think the "assault weapon" ban involved full auto guns.
The NSSF is still stuck on please don't take my hunting and sport gun. That will never defend the 2nd Amendment.
You can do most hunting with a Ruger Model 1, single shot.
It still comes from the split in the gun world that thinks guns are for sports and hunting. They deny that the growth in gun ownership and the RBKA comes from the self-defense side of the game. It has been clearly shown.
The hunting folks happily cooperated with gun bans, laws, etc.
If you think modern sporting rifle will fool anybody for one second, you need to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
You can do most hunting with a Ruger Model 1, single shot.
It still comes from the split in the gun world that thinks guns are for sports and hunting. They deny that the growth in gun ownership and the RBKA comes from the self-defense side of the game. It has been clearly shown.
The hunting folks happily cooperated with gun bans, laws, etc.
If you think modern sporting rifle will fool anybody for one second, you need to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
Member
OP, I don't think we should agree with the Anti term for a minute.
~On The Road Again...~
ATBackPackin
Member
Unless it has that "fun" position on the selector switch, I will not call it an assault rifle. I have and do correct people when they use that term. However I do it in a kind and informative manner as opposed to angry or demeaning one.
I like the term Modern Sporting Rifle, MSR, but for the most part is that really an accurate way to describe them? The AR has had some upgrades over the years but it is still a fifty plus year old design. The AK is pretty much untouched since its conception. How about Contemporary, Ergonomic, Sporting, Semi Automatic Rifle. CESSAR? Doesn't have the same ring, but seems more accurate to me.
The AR-15 is my favorite rifle, but I must admit it is not very pleasing aesthetically. As a cabinetmaker I love the way wood looks on guns and generally only find guns with wood attractive. I like my AR because of its ergonomics and low recoil. It is an extremely comfortable rifle to shoot and shoot a lot. I also like its capacity. Why wouldn't I want the largest capacity magazine that the rifle can fire while still functioning properly, not weigh too much, and does not interfere with any shooting positions. So for me the thirty round magazines are just about a perfect balance. They have a good capacity and are not so large that they interfere while in the prone position. I would love, and I mean love, to have wood components for my AR. It is something I have thought about doing but the weight would probably be fairly high. So for me it has absolutely nothing to do with how it looks and everything to do with how it functions.
Shawn
I like the term Modern Sporting Rifle, MSR, but for the most part is that really an accurate way to describe them? The AR has had some upgrades over the years but it is still a fifty plus year old design. The AK is pretty much untouched since its conception. How about Contemporary, Ergonomic, Sporting, Semi Automatic Rifle. CESSAR? Doesn't have the same ring, but seems more accurate to me.
The AR-15 is my favorite rifle, but I must admit it is not very pleasing aesthetically. As a cabinetmaker I love the way wood looks on guns and generally only find guns with wood attractive. I like my AR because of its ergonomics and low recoil. It is an extremely comfortable rifle to shoot and shoot a lot. I also like its capacity. Why wouldn't I want the largest capacity magazine that the rifle can fire while still functioning properly, not weigh too much, and does not interfere with any shooting positions. So for me the thirty round magazines are just about a perfect balance. They have a good capacity and are not so large that they interfere while in the prone position. I would love, and I mean love, to have wood components for my AR. It is something I have thought about doing but the weight would probably be fairly high. So for me it has absolutely nothing to do with how it looks and everything to do with how it functions.
Shawn
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Accepted, certainly, however there is a nugget of truth to what they say. We don't keep and bear weapons primarily for sporting purposes, but to do a portion of the soldier's task if need be -- that is defending ourselves and our country, which means shooting other people if forced to do so.
It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to look at it that way, and it may honestly not play well to Joe & Jane Voter, but it is truth and I don't feel it is appropriate to try to hide it.
Again, probably quite a few. Especially those who don't know WHY it is what it is. Now some have accepted the Remington R-15 or R-25 versions of the platform. They aren't very common though, and few users are really all that excited by a camo paint job, but I guess it is something.
Of course! No question. And an equally valid question in many gun buyers' minds would be "Why SHOULDN'T I have a rifle that is, and looks, just like our soldiers' weapon? Why SHOULD I hide the exercise of my freedoms under a cloak of superficiality?"
I don't know that I see a satisfying answer to that question.
SigMic
Member
Modern sporting rifle.
Just like 10-round magazines are low cap mags (for most guns). The 15-20 rounders they come with are standard cap.
Just like 10-round magazines are low cap mags (for most guns). The 15-20 rounders they come with are standard cap.
plexreticle
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,240
Many gun owners like the term assault rifle and enjoy the notoriety that comes with it.
Personally, if I shoot targets with it I call it a target rifle, if I hunt with it I call it a hunting rifle.
Personally, if I shoot targets with it I call it a target rifle, if I hunt with it I call it a hunting rifle.
SigMic
Member
I would not have called our forefathers (ie revolutionary heroes) terrorists just because that's what the British called them, even if a large chunk of the population was using the term
OP
OP
HoosierQ
Member
"Modern Style Sport Utility Rifle" or "Sport Utility Rifle" for short. The SUV is, more or less, a variation on various military vehicles re-designed for civilian use in town, on the farm, or off the road. The SUR is, more or less, a variation on various military rifles (sans full auto or 3-round burst) re-designed for civilian use in the home (for HD), at the range for target shooting, or on the farm/ranch/woods for hunting, varmint and predator control.
SUVs are fun to drive. SURs are fun to shoot. SUVs can do a lot of different things pretty well. SURs can do a lot of different things pretty well.
SUVs are fun to drive. SURs are fun to shoot. SUVs can do a lot of different things pretty well. SURs can do a lot of different things pretty well.
beatledog7
Member
How about OCR: Operator Configurable Rifle.
It's accurate, it doesn't sound threatening, and it doesn't piddle around with the sporting aspect (which the antis will never buy into anyway)
It's accurate, it doesn't sound threatening, and it doesn't piddle around with the sporting aspect (which the antis will never buy into anyway)
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
GPR
I have long favored the term "General Purpose Rifle."
More recently, after Kel-Tec released the SU-16 series of rifles, I also found "Sport Utility Rifle" acceptable.
Both the "general purpose" and "sport utility" terms have parallels in the automotive world.
The first officially named "general purpose" vehicle was the "General Purpose Vehicle" --> "G.P. Vehicle" --> GPV --> G(ee)P --> [J]eep --> "Jeep" that was famously used in WW II, and later enshrined as the Jeep that has evolved into arguably the most recognizable of the modern . . . "sport utility" vehicles.
So, GPR = General Purpose Rifle (or GP rifle, or "Jeep" rifle).
And SU Rifle = Sport Utility Rifle.
Notwithstanding that Kel-Tec is the first company to actually use the terminology in a brand name designation, I think Sport Utility Rifle is acceptable.
However . . .
The Second Amendment isn't about "sporting" anything.
It was written in the context of every home having a General Purpose musket (rifle, nowadays), which served both to gather game and to defend the homestead -- and the nation.
Consequently, I favor the term GPR.
General Purpose Rifle.
Oh, and for those of you who still haven't seen this [antique] rendition of a sporting rifle:
I have long favored the term "General Purpose Rifle."
More recently, after Kel-Tec released the SU-16 series of rifles, I also found "Sport Utility Rifle" acceptable.
Both the "general purpose" and "sport utility" terms have parallels in the automotive world.
The first officially named "general purpose" vehicle was the "General Purpose Vehicle" --> "G.P. Vehicle" --> GPV --> G(ee)P --> [J]eep --> "Jeep" that was famously used in WW II, and later enshrined as the Jeep that has evolved into arguably the most recognizable of the modern . . . "sport utility" vehicles.
So, GPR = General Purpose Rifle (or GP rifle, or "Jeep" rifle).
And SU Rifle = Sport Utility Rifle.
Notwithstanding that Kel-Tec is the first company to actually use the terminology in a brand name designation, I think Sport Utility Rifle is acceptable.
However . . .
The Second Amendment isn't about "sporting" anything.
It was written in the context of every home having a General Purpose musket (rifle, nowadays), which served both to gather game and to defend the homestead -- and the nation.
Consequently, I favor the term GPR.
General Purpose Rifle.
Oh, and for those of you who still haven't seen this [antique] rendition of a sporting rifle:
XxR3M0V3RxX
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 11
I would use the term personal defense rifle. It insinuates that the rifle is non aggressive without allowing the anti's to further re enforce the idea that we only have firearms for hunting. It will be a lot harder for them to villify a firearm whose name type reflects non agressiveness.
It also doesn't pretend that the rifle is something it isn't. The ak and at platforms are man stoppers. But should a Hitler arise someday, we will need manstoppers.
It also doesn't pretend that the rifle is something it isn't. The ak and at platforms are man stoppers. But should a Hitler arise someday, we will need manstoppers.
rikman
Member
+1 Couldn't agree more and say the same!
danez71
Member
Ehhhh.... I'm only going to 1/2 disagree with you.
The thing is, we are our own 2nd worst enemy.
Constantly on this board people start talking about their or smeone elses guns and describes them as an 'arsenal'.
I see words like 'ordanance', 'weapons cache' etc etc.
Are we using the medias buzzwords or are they using ours?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
