is an ar15 an assault rifle
- Thread starter sonyvaio2
- Start date
- Status
RedHeadHunter
Member
The first assault rifle name and definition was created by the Germans during
WWII, the sturmgewehr. It is the basis of the definition of assault rifles
since. The things that made it stand out is:
Short light weight rifle
Detachable high capacity magazine
Chambered in an intermediate cartridge (bigger than a pistol and smaller than a rifle)
Capable of full auto fire.
The last one was later commonly includes select fire or burst fire.
Early on, politicians would refer to civilian AR's and AK's as "assault style
weapons". As the media kept referring to them as assault weapons, the politicians
changed their focus to anything that resembled a military style weapon.
It then changed to anything that looked mean or evil.
I guess it depends on which definition you want to go with, Historic, Political, or Media.
Some consider the Ruger 10/22 an assault rifle, some consider the 1903 Springfield an assault rifle because it actually was a military rifle. (I have met people like this:banghead
Personally I go with the historic definition.
groundsclown I really like the chart. I will have to refer to it often.
WWII, the sturmgewehr. It is the basis of the definition of assault rifles
since. The things that made it stand out is:
Short light weight rifle
Detachable high capacity magazine
Chambered in an intermediate cartridge (bigger than a pistol and smaller than a rifle)
Capable of full auto fire.
The last one was later commonly includes select fire or burst fire.
Early on, politicians would refer to civilian AR's and AK's as "assault style
weapons". As the media kept referring to them as assault weapons, the politicians
changed their focus to anything that resembled a military style weapon.
It then changed to anything that looked mean or evil.
I guess it depends on which definition you want to go with, Historic, Political, or Media.
Some consider the Ruger 10/22 an assault rifle, some consider the 1903 Springfield an assault rifle because it actually was a military rifle. (I have met people like this:banghead
Personally I go with the historic definition.
groundsclown I really like the chart. I will have to refer to it often.
jad0110
Member
I saw a show on History recently where they even called a friggin' BAR an assault rifle! Now we have the even dumber sounding term "assault gun", which I presume can apply to anything from an AK-47 to a child's water pistol.
Agreed. The Germans came up with the "assault rifle" concept to start, so call me crazy but I prefer to go by their definition to (which basically aligns itself with the military definition today).
The media and political definitions are basically the same, which is what the ATF definition is tied to.
As for my 16" mid length AR, I simply call it a semi automatic carbine. Same as my M-1.
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler to describe the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently re-named Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (984 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (984 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.
The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.
The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.
45_auto
Member
Any of those are fine. If you want to argue with the LEGAL definition, make sure you like spending time in jail and have lots of money for lawyers. There's a lot of gunowners in Maryland and several other states who would like to see you fight it.
Ar180shooter
Member
Here's my question...
Is a Ruger Mini-14 as pictured an "assault rifle"?
No?
What about now?
Yes?
Well, it's the same rifle but dropped in to a fancy stock and with a fancy magazine. You just showed that the "definition" of "assault rifle" is purely based on cosmetics and has nothing to do with function. This renders the word virtually meaningless.
Is a Ruger Mini-14 as pictured an "assault rifle"?
No?
What about now?
Yes?
Well, it's the same rifle but dropped in to a fancy stock and with a fancy magazine. You just showed that the "definition" of "assault rifle" is purely based on cosmetics and has nothing to do with function. This renders the word virtually meaningless.
beatledog7
Member
Rationally, an "assault weapon" is whatever one uses against another with intent to inflict physical harm upon that other.
Could be an AR-15, or a Glock.
Could be a knife, or a club, or a fist.
Could be an automobile, or a pair of scissors.
Anti gunners love the term "assault rifle" because it helps them make all firearms seem evil.
Could be an AR-15, or a Glock.
Could be a knife, or a club, or a fist.
Could be an automobile, or a pair of scissors.
Anti gunners love the term "assault rifle" because it helps them make all firearms seem evil.
RedHeadHunter
Member
Politicians can call a rose a skunk, even if every one knows different. Unfortunately they have the power to make it illegal to smell the rose or skunk.
The media will carry the water saying, "Why should any one want to smell the skunk?". The most disappointing part about this is, we the voters have allowed them to have this power.
The politicians and media change the definitions of words all the time, does not make them correct. The only way to change this is to follow the law (stay out of jail), and vote to try to change leadership to someone less ignorant about the issues you care about.
I am lucky to live where most of our politicians hunt and shoot. We have just been awarded with the most corrupt politicians in the country, but at least they understand firearms better than most.
Last edited:
45_auto
Member
Interesting theory. You believe cosmetics are meaningless? You think the difference between a "STOP" sign and a "YIELD" sign at an intersection are meaningless, since there's no difference between them other than cosmetics? Their function is the same, they're both nothing more than a piece of material with paint on them.
Legally, depending on where you're located, that cosmetic definition of an assault weapon can get you put into jail. You may not like it and you can argue semantics all day, but you ain't gonna change it on any internet forum.
Carl N. Brown
Member
"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Violence Policy Center, in Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
A few people can envision a practical use for these weapons: a friend of the court brief by ex-military men to the US Supreme Court defended the right of individuals to own military rifles for civilian marksmanship purposes, as a support of both the individual RKBA and the support of a well-regulated militia: pointing out over a hundred years of the military promoting civilian rifle practice. For them the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not either support of militia (volunteer military service) or individual rights, but both.
I personally believe than anyone eligible to serve in the military should be familiar with the AR and AK platforms (since in national emergency there is simply not time to adequately train volunteers or conscripts) and should have the right to own and use military style firearms, whether as active training or as historical relics or keepsakes. This was a founding principle of the National Rifle Association of the UK in 1858 and the NRA of America in 1871.
-Josh Sugarmann, National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Violence Policy Center, in Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
A few people can envision a practical use for these weapons: a friend of the court brief by ex-military men to the US Supreme Court defended the right of individuals to own military rifles for civilian marksmanship purposes, as a support of both the individual RKBA and the support of a well-regulated militia: pointing out over a hundred years of the military promoting civilian rifle practice. For them the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not either support of militia (volunteer military service) or individual rights, but both.
I personally believe than anyone eligible to serve in the military should be familiar with the AR and AK platforms (since in national emergency there is simply not time to adequately train volunteers or conscripts) and should have the right to own and use military style firearms, whether as active training or as historical relics or keepsakes. This was a founding principle of the National Rifle Association of the UK in 1858 and the NRA of America in 1871.
Ar180shooter
Member
I believe that the legal classification of a firearm should not be based on appearances, but function. As firearms law is a public safety issue, it should be solely based on the functional abilities of the firearm. In order to justify the restrictions on such features, you must show that the presence of those features alone poses a clear and significant risk to public safety. So far, this has never been done.
A stop sign and a yield sign are two different signs. How about we paint the stop sign tan and add flashing lights all around it... It's still a stop sign, but now looks different. That is the point I was making.
As for not making a difference on an internet forum, if so, why do you even post here? This is a place to discuss issues, not enact political change.
45_auto
Member
Good for you. Now all you have to do is to get at least 51% of the country to think the way you do.
Funny, I thought it was done in 1994 and expired in 2004. Called the "Assault Weapons Ban" or something like that? But what do I know?
To discuss stuff like this with people like you.
that depends on who you are asking! to an anti-gun politician, EVERYTHING that hold more than 1 cartridge, is an assault weapon. 
to a gun enthusiast, only full auto capable firearms, that hold 20 or more rounds, are to be considered and assault weapon, and then only if it is used for that purpose! 
personally, i think that any u.s. natural born citizen, that has not been convicted of a violent crime or felony, should be able to buy, poses, and shoot anything he or she wants up to a M-2 50 BMG without any special B.A.T.F. bologna. and any naturalized U.S. citizen, who passes anti-terrorist screening as well. 
obviously, when The Constitution was written, our forefathers had no idea that there would be such a thing as semi, or full auto firearms in the future. BUT their reasoning for US to keep and bear arms, was to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN LINE! 
currently, our government is so out of line, it is not even funny. they know it, which is why they are trying so hard to .......... well, if you do not know how hard they are trying to do what they want, maybe you should do a little reading!
to a gun enthusiast, only full auto capable firearms, that hold 20 or more rounds, are to be considered and assault weapon, and then only if it is used for that purpose! personally, i think that any u.s. natural born citizen, that has not been convicted of a violent crime or felony, should be able to buy, poses, and shoot anything he or she wants up to a M-2 50 BMG without any special B.A.T.F. bologna. and any naturalized U.S. citizen, who passes anti-terrorist screening as well. obviously, when The Constitution was written, our forefathers had no idea that there would be such a thing as semi, or full auto firearms in the future. BUT their reasoning for US to keep and bear arms, was to KEEP THE GOVERNMENT IN LINE! currently, our government is so out of line, it is not even funny. they know it, which is why they are trying so hard to .......... well, if you do not know how hard they are trying to do what they want, maybe you should do a little reading!45_auto
Member
Your world would be interesting. Can you imagine a bunch of violent mentally ill people, who aren't even functional enough to have a driver's license, running around with M2's?
Or how about a bunch of 12 year olds able to buy M16's? That should be fun.
Ar180shooter
Member
Firstly, many people do understand the insanity when it's explained the way I did. They see how unrelated the appearance of the firearm is to the function of the firearm.
Second, yes, the AWB did expire on 04, and the streets didn't run red with blood like the antis claimed they would. Kinda proves my point, no? That aside, at no point did I say that law actually reflected some objective truth, only that it should. The implication was that I do not believe the AWB was justified and based on reasonable grounds.
Third, if you're here to discuss stuff, why bring up the point you did earlier? It was off topic and had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
doubleh
Member
Calling the civilian version of the AR an assault rifle is about as logical as calling the Jeep Wrangler an SUV.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
I own no assault weapons. I only own stop assault weapons.
anything can be an assault weapon from a rock up to a nuclear warhead
Any rifle can be an assault rifle from a 22 gun up to a recoilless rifle.
anything can be a hunting weapon starting with a simple rock.
any rifle can be a hunting rifle starting with a 22
The term is purely a political tool with no meaning. Trying to restrict or define its usage is a political game of football.
St Thomas Aquinas: nothing is inherently evil but its manner of usage may make it so.
Any rifle can be an assault rifle from a 22 gun up to a recoilless rifle.
anything can be a hunting weapon starting with a simple rock.
any rifle can be a hunting rifle starting with a 22
The term is purely a political tool with no meaning. Trying to restrict or define its usage is a political game of football.
St Thomas Aquinas: nothing is inherently evil but its manner of usage may make it so.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The difference between a Mini 14 ranch rifle and a Mini 14 tactical is a difference in appearance; the difference between a "STOP" sign and a "YIELD" sign is a difference in kind.
I feel confident that in my home state I am not subject to a "assault weapon" mentality that I have to fear a felony penalty just over what my gun looks like; but, that I am sure I would face penalties if I assaulted someone with a weapon. That is how it should be.
Persom who commits acts that are malum in se should be punished, but mere possession of something malum simply because it is prohibitum especially based on appearances should not be felonized. The Assault Weapon Ban was symbolic scapegoating, a form of voodoo criminology. We have dozens of law abiding citizens who shoot military rifles in the local matches and harm no one; our worst recent local murderer killed three people with knife and baseball bat.
I feel confident that in my home state I am not subject to a "assault weapon" mentality that I have to fear a felony penalty just over what my gun looks like; but, that I am sure I would face penalties if I assaulted someone with a weapon. That is how it should be.
Persom who commits acts that are malum in se should be punished, but mere possession of something malum simply because it is prohibitum especially based on appearances should not be felonized. The Assault Weapon Ban was symbolic scapegoating, a form of voodoo criminology. We have dozens of law abiding citizens who shoot military rifles in the local matches and harm no one; our worst recent local murderer killed three people with knife and baseball bat.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Back before the mediahcrities began re-defining words, the term "para-military" was common.
E.g., the M16 is a military weapon with selective-fire capability. The AR-15 is a para-military, civilian version without selective-fire capability.
Thus the M16 is considered an assault rifle; the AR 15, no.
And just to add to the fun, the M16 is both an assault rifle and the US military's battle rifle.
E.g., the M16 is a military weapon with selective-fire capability. The AR-15 is a para-military, civilian version without selective-fire capability.
Thus the M16 is considered an assault rifle; the AR 15, no.
And just to add to the fun, the M16 is both an assault rifle and the US military's battle rifle.
Assault rifle is a classification subject to interpretation and definition. Who is doing said interpretation obviously differs and therefore what is and isn't one depends on who you ask. As pointed out the original/military definition would not classify an AR-15 as a true assault rifle while the anti gun/political/hunting/sporting world likely would.
I have to disagree that the mini-14 in ranch vs tactical configurations are only cosmetic. Each change results in possibly better ergonomics, improved firepower/faster followup shots, the ability to add optics and other accessories, etc. I don't agree with the assault weapons ban but each "evil feature" does serve a purpose more than just looking tacticool or a coat of paint.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
I have to disagree that the mini-14 in ranch vs tactical configurations are only cosmetic. Each change results in possibly better ergonomics, improved firepower/faster followup shots, the ability to add optics and other accessories, etc. I don't agree with the assault weapons ban but each "evil feature" does serve a purpose more than just looking tacticool or a coat of paint.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
ugaarguy
Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 13,828
Better ergos make it less sporting? Higher magazine capacity, and faster followup shots make it less sporting? The ability to more easily mount optics make it less sporting?
The goal of a true sportsman is to make the quickest, cleanest (i.e. most humane) kill on an animal he or she can. Inproved ergonomics and optics greatly aid in this pursuit. Higher magazine capacity and faster followup shots are of great utility when trying to preserve native species by eradicating feral species like hogs. These features are also very useful when hunting to keep in check populations of predators like coyotes.
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
The semantics over what and what isn't only helps to overshadow the fact that we have the right, past injustices have taken some of that right away and continuing to parse words to the delight of the antis does little for the cause or to make progress in restoring those lost rights.
If the US Military switched to semi auto only in their M4's and M16's would it make a difference in the definition?
Focus on the prize not the side shows.
If the US Military switched to semi auto only in their M4's and M16's would it make a difference in the definition?
Focus on the prize not the side shows.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked