Steel Horse Rider
Member
I like the term "Utility Rifle".
But "Assault Rifle" isn't a vague term at all. It is very specific."Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon" are terms far too vague and dangerous to civil rights.
I vote for something like Military Style rifle. Mil-Sty
By inserting 'style', it keeps the description pervasive and fairly neultral.
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.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.
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.
Disagree, with whom?
Of course the term is incorrect. But that doesn't mean the term will fall out of favor on the basis of that technicality.
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.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.
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.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?
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?"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.
+1 Couldn't agree more and say the same!We have lost the battle in the media (Never had a chance), so all non gun enthusiasts call them assault rifles, and even many gun enthusiasts do as well.
When someone asks me if I have an assault rifle, I tell them no, I do not have any full auto stuff, but I do have a couple of semi auto lookalikes, and that full auto firearms are heavily controlled, very expensive, and much harder to get than semi autos. You cannot just walk into a gun shop and buy one, even if you have the money.
That gently counters all the lies the media puts forth every day.
I choose not to call them assault rifles.
I disagree with Danes71, in regard to "military style."
That is another buzzword in the media these days. You often see reports of an "arsenal" that includes "military grade" ammunition.