Okay, I am sick of seeing the much debated (and usually heated) argument over what the terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" mean. I am posting this to simply be informative, not to start world war three. You see, generally someone starts a broad question about a "battle rifle" or an "assault rifle". Then several posts are made, then someone decides to post saying, "gun such and such doesn't really fit into the term "blah". Next thing you know everyone has digressed into "sez you" and "shuh!".
Anyway as one person posted:
Fair enough...
And then someone else said:
Usually these threads end with a "what difference does it make" answer, sometimes the original thread starter gets the answer to his question, sometimes not. Anyway I would like to give a brief history of these two terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle". Perhaps you are thinking to yourself "What difference does it make"? Or "It's just semantics". Yeah, semantics, words and their meanings. Let me tell you something. Webster went out of his way to define common words, and have a proper, standard form for spelling words. Why? Because everybody was getting into arguments over spelling and word definitions. Which just goes to prove the old adage, that history repeats itself. And of course history repeats itself because nobody bothers to study it.
Okay so here goes:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/index.html
Here you go, the Department of Defense (DoD) Dictionary. Look for the term "assault rifle" or "battle rifle". Not there is it? Yeah, so at face value the second person I quoted look likes he has an argument. But I must say it's more subtle than that. That would be the United States DoD. Let me delve a little deeper.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm
"Final version appeared under the designation of Mp-44, and then Hitler finally approved it, but the new gun received also a new designation - SturmGevehr-44, which stands for no more than "Assault Rifle" in german language. This was pure act of propaganda, but the name stuck not only to that gun, but to the whole new class of automatic weapons, designed to fire intermediate cartridges...Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and, partly, light machineguns for front troops. Both guns were designed to fire intermediate (between rifle and pistol) cartridge, and have effective range of 600 meters or so..."
Okay, so Adolf Hitler was the first to designate a weapon "assault rifle". This was more like a concept, and the word was self descriptive. The general idea was a weapon that would be select fire, use an intermediate cartridge to that which was available at the time (8mm, 7.62x54, 30-06, .308 were common), a lighter more agile weapon to be used by a quickly moving force, that would engage at an intermediate range (generally 400 meters or less). Gee, does that sound like a certain rifle used by our military right now?
This term "assault rifle" is no different than us using the word "blitz" in football. This word comes from "blitzkrieg" Which literally means; "lightening war". It has to do with a speedy coordinated attack upon a focused target. This also comes from Hitler, and Co. of Nazi Germany. So lest I receive some argument that "well Hitler invented assault rifle, and we shouldn't use it" then I will have the same argument against "blitz" used as football terminalogy. That sounds dumb doesn't it?
Okay, so thats a short history of "assault rifle". Well what about "battle rifle"? Which happens to be short for "main battle rifle". Well you see that came about in an evolutionary way as an answerto, and contrast against the term "assault rifle". To state it simply, it meant any other rifle which was used in the major battles at that time. Really you could narrow it down to four main rifles; the M1 Garand (this could also be argued it belongs in a different class, at that time), the Russian Mosin Nagant, the German Mauser, and the British Lee Enfield. These were the main battle rifles at the time of the last great war. There were others, but I'll skip them for now. All of these were large caliber, powerful rifles with which a group of men would engage another group of men at long distances (some of these rifles were sighted in at 1000-2000 yards), and they would fight by firing volleys at each other. Usually moving in some specific formation. Not nearly so dynamic of a style of fighting we see today now is it?
Anyway I am not trying to pick a fight, or be condescending. I am simply trying to give background information as to why some of the other forum members, on this site and many others will pick nits over the two terms. Generally most of these fellows have some sort military background, and are usually the old timers, who been through some of the not so recent wars. And they lived and fought at a time where everybody used these terms to describe a specific idea or concept. If you want to try to pick a fight it won't work. I just don't care. I am simply telling you to further help you understand where some of us are coming from when we use these terms.
Anyway as one person posted:
Fair enough...
And then someone else said:
Usually these threads end with a "what difference does it make" answer, sometimes the original thread starter gets the answer to his question, sometimes not. Anyway I would like to give a brief history of these two terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle". Perhaps you are thinking to yourself "What difference does it make"? Or "It's just semantics". Yeah, semantics, words and their meanings. Let me tell you something. Webster went out of his way to define common words, and have a proper, standard form for spelling words. Why? Because everybody was getting into arguments over spelling and word definitions. Which just goes to prove the old adage, that history repeats itself. And of course history repeats itself because nobody bothers to study it.
Okay so here goes:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/index.html
Here you go, the Department of Defense (DoD) Dictionary. Look for the term "assault rifle" or "battle rifle". Not there is it? Yeah, so at face value the second person I quoted look likes he has an argument. But I must say it's more subtle than that. That would be the United States DoD. Let me delve a little deeper.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as51-e.htm
"Final version appeared under the designation of Mp-44, and then Hitler finally approved it, but the new gun received also a new designation - SturmGevehr-44, which stands for no more than "Assault Rifle" in german language. This was pure act of propaganda, but the name stuck not only to that gun, but to the whole new class of automatic weapons, designed to fire intermediate cartridges...Both guns were intended as a replacement for submachine guns, bolt action rifles and, partly, light machineguns for front troops. Both guns were designed to fire intermediate (between rifle and pistol) cartridge, and have effective range of 600 meters or so..."
Okay, so Adolf Hitler was the first to designate a weapon "assault rifle". This was more like a concept, and the word was self descriptive. The general idea was a weapon that would be select fire, use an intermediate cartridge to that which was available at the time (8mm, 7.62x54, 30-06, .308 were common), a lighter more agile weapon to be used by a quickly moving force, that would engage at an intermediate range (generally 400 meters or less). Gee, does that sound like a certain rifle used by our military right now?
This term "assault rifle" is no different than us using the word "blitz" in football. This word comes from "blitzkrieg" Which literally means; "lightening war". It has to do with a speedy coordinated attack upon a focused target. This also comes from Hitler, and Co. of Nazi Germany. So lest I receive some argument that "well Hitler invented assault rifle, and we shouldn't use it" then I will have the same argument against "blitz" used as football terminalogy. That sounds dumb doesn't it?
Okay, so thats a short history of "assault rifle". Well what about "battle rifle"? Which happens to be short for "main battle rifle". Well you see that came about in an evolutionary way as an answerto, and contrast against the term "assault rifle". To state it simply, it meant any other rifle which was used in the major battles at that time. Really you could narrow it down to four main rifles; the M1 Garand (this could also be argued it belongs in a different class, at that time), the Russian Mosin Nagant, the German Mauser, and the British Lee Enfield. These were the main battle rifles at the time of the last great war. There were others, but I'll skip them for now. All of these were large caliber, powerful rifles with which a group of men would engage another group of men at long distances (some of these rifles were sighted in at 1000-2000 yards), and they would fight by firing volleys at each other. Usually moving in some specific formation. Not nearly so dynamic of a style of fighting we see today now is it?
Anyway I am not trying to pick a fight, or be condescending. I am simply trying to give background information as to why some of the other forum members, on this site and many others will pick nits over the two terms. Generally most of these fellows have some sort military background, and are usually the old timers, who been through some of the not so recent wars. And they lived and fought at a time where everybody used these terms to describe a specific idea or concept. If you want to try to pick a fight it won't work. I just don't care. I am simply telling you to further help you understand where some of us are coming from when we use these terms.
