Need a little help with something???

[bersaguy]

I will admit I am somewhat uneducated about long guns in these modern times I need someone to explain to me just exactly what a True Assault Weapon is. And then tell me what the Libs are calling assault weapons. During my tour in Nam it started out with an M-14 for my first year and then my team was re-issued new weapons while in Chu-Lai and it was the new and improved M-16 which did function somewhat better in the jungle with less mechanical issues. Which I learn a little while back that they discovered the M-14's function better in the desert dry air conditions. I am aware of the fact that the M-14 and 16 I carried in Nam would surely be an assault weapon. But what are the LIBS considering an Actual Assault Weapon at the civilian levels we have today is my question? ................... :shrug: :shrug: 

[JAB]

Put simply, at least to my understanding, a true assault rifle is fully automatic or at least has the option to go fully automatic (select fire.)  Further, to my understanding, that is a real term that has been used by various military groups for decades.  My understanding is that the term pretty much started with the German Sturmgewehr.

 

Not that Wikipedia is the ultimate source or anything but this might help:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

 

"Assault weapon" on the other hand, is a term that was made up by liberal antis so that they could use it as an umbrella term to classify (and attempt to ban) a whole lot of guns that aren't really assault rifles but that have some feature or another that makes them have to change their Depends more regularly than they would like whether that feature is an adjustable shoulder stock, a muzzle break, a magazine that holds more than ten rounds, semi-automatic action or just the fact that the rifle happens to be all black..  In other words, the term 'assault weapon' doesn't really mean anything in any, real sense.

Edited April 7, 2015 by JAB

[Jonnin]

assault weapon:

a MODERN weapon designed for and used by a significant (that is, not rabble using 50 year old AKs and home-made crap) military force or swat team etc.  So, while a musket would have fit the bill in 1770,  it does not currently.  

 

Most of these include full auto or select fire (single shot, 3-5 round bursts, full auto select switch) weapons.  This includes uzi pistols, m-16s, full auto military AK 47/73, and so on. 

 

Libs call any rifle, even small .22 caliber stuff,  "high powered".  The term high powered in the news means "more powerful than .22 LR".   

Libs call any magazine that holds more than a revolver to be "high capacity".  A 10 rounder? High cap.  A standard 30 round AR mag? "ULTRA high cap".

Libs call any semi automatic firearm larger than a medium handgun an assault rifle.  Plr 16? assault rifle.  9mm carbine?  Assault rifle.  Ar-15? assault rifle.   Childs .22 LR on an AR platform?  Assault rifle.  10-22 with fugly hardware? Assault rifle.

 

 

Remember that this is all propaganda.  The term gun violence is propaganda, created to indicate that murdering someone with a single shot from a pistol is more violent and evil than hacking them to death with a hatchet or beating them to death with a rubber mallet over a 45 min session.    The term assault rifle is to scare the public about the plastic FORM of the gun, regardless of its capabilities, and to indicate that anything more advanced than a bolt action hunting rifle is "designed to KILL PEOPLE".   Nevermind that bolt actions were designed... to kill people.   The term high powered is to scare people into thinking these rifles are extra potent, when most are weaker than a deer rifle.   The term high capacity magazine is to scare people and make it seem abnormal to have a standard magazine.   It is ALL propaganda.  Anyone using these terms is either an anti-gunner or ignorant of gun issues (or both).

Edited April 7, 2015 by Jonnin

[TNWNGR]

Your M-14 would more properly be defined as a "Battle Rifle" since it utilizes a full power and length 7.62x51 cartridge. The FN/FAL also fell into this classification.

The M-16 you carried wasn't a battle rifle but it wasn't an assault rifle either due to its OAL and barrel length. The XM-177 and later M-4 could more properly be considered as being assault rifles. Its all kind of moot anyway given the whole terminology pretext wasn't worth a tinkers da*n anyhow.

[enfield]

"Assault Rifle"?

 

There's no such thing.

[raildog]

I have read that the gun grabbers coined the turm "Assault Rifle" from the original name Armalite Rifle 15 that was sort end to AR 15 by Mr Stoner and the fine folks at Armalite. Armalite still calls all of there rifles AR fallowed by a number there newest offering is the AR 31. Bersa I have book that you can borrow on the history of the Modern Sporting Rifle we all love to call the AR15. Edited April 7, 2015 by raildog

[luvmyberetta]

The media has shown plenty of ignorance when using this term & it's mainly to get ratings. They want to call every black rifle an "assault rifle" because the other ignorant people watching the news buy into it. Yesterday I was watching one of those real crime shows ("FBI Files" I think) & when one of the lawyers called the shooters 9mm Hi-Point rifle a "black polymer carbine assault rifle". Really...a Hi-point being classified as an assault rifle? :doh:  I guess that means the Nylon 66 Apache I've had since I was 10 years old is an assault rifle too. Shame on dad for trying to turn me into a terrorist by allowing me to have such a dangerous piece of .22lr destruction. :usa:

[Caster]

One thing they will NEVER understand is, "It ain't the rifle!"

 

 

Which do you fear more?

 

Some ghetto trash with no education, training or skill wielding one of these?

 

 

 

OR....someone like Chris Kyle [God rest your soul!!!] with one of these?

 

 

 

One is a sophisticated piece of weaponry.  The other was invented before anyone currently under the age of 117 was even born.  

The first option offers you a reasonable chance of survival.  

The second option offers you the quickest route to hanging out with St. Peter.  

[bersaguy]

Well, that gives me a pretty good idea that when I hear the term "assault rifle" spoken, I am listening to some one that needs his or her Depends changed because they are full of CRAP. Thanks for the input folks................ :up:

[JAB]

Well, that gives me a pretty good idea that when I hear the term "assault rifle" spoken, I am listening to some one that needs his or her Depends changed because they are full of CRAP. Thanks for the input folks................ :up:

 

I still maintain that the term 'assault rifle' is a legitimate term with a legitimate meaning.  The term 'assault weapon' is the anti-coined term that really means nothing.  Antis did not coin the term 'assault rifle'.  The Germans/Nazi military did way back during WWII (Sturmgewehr translates as 'assault rifle.')

Edited April 7, 2015 by JAB

[crossfire]

I will admit I am somewhat uneducated about long guns in these modern times I need someone to explain to me just exactly what a True Assault Weapon is. And then tell me what the Libs are calling assault weapons. During my tour in Nam it started out with an M-14 for my first year and then my team was re-issued new weapons while in Chu-Lai and it was the new and improved M-16 which did function somewhat better in the jungle with less mechanical issues. Which I learn a little while back that they discovered the M-14's function better in the desert dry air conditions. I am aware of the fact that the M-14 and 16 I carried in Nam would surely be an assault weapon. But what are the LIBS considering an Actual Assault Weapon at the civilian levels we have today is my question? ................... :shrug: :shrug:

You must of been their around the same time I was or you were in the USMC. They took away our M-14's just before we shipped and gave us M-16's. I was there Army, Dec. 1966 thru Dec. 1967. The USMC kept the M-14 longer then the Army.

[bersaguy]

Well, if one thinks about it long enough the list of Assault Weapons is never ending. I'm sure you could pick almost any letter in the alphabet and come up with the names of at least 3 or more Assault Weapons. Might be fun to see how many different Assault Weapons could come from the Alphabet.  (A) Axe, axle, Anvil could all be used to kill someone..........jmho

[bersaguy]

You must of been their around the same time I was or you were in the USMC. They took away our M-14's just before we shipped and gave us M-16's. I was there Army, Dec. 1966 thru Dec. 1967. The USMC kept the M-14 longer then the Army.

Actually I was Navy and most of the Naval ground forces were issued M-14's and didn't actually get updated till 1970.  It seemed that most of the Naval ground forces where the last to get anything new.

[Clod Stomper]

I still maintain that the term 'assault rifle' is a legitimate term with a legitimate meaning. The term 'assault weapon' is the anti-coined term that really means nothing. Antis did not coin the term 'assault rifle'. The Germans/Nazi military did way back during WWII (Sturmgewehr translates as 'assault rifle.')

THIS! Except Sturm translates as "storm" and gewehr is of course rifle. But Assault Rifle is a reasonable translation. Same function.

The US military, if I'm not mistaken, has used the term "assault RIFLE" to describe the M16. A lightweight, select-fire, rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

"Assault WEAPON" is a term invented by the left to demonize a type of firearm that looks menacing to them. It was first used in the late '80s I believe. I won't swear to it, though. Just my memory.

So, if someone calls something an assault rifle, they may be correct. If they use the term assault weapon, they're full of it. Edited April 7, 2015 by Clod Stomper

[nightrunner]

Assault rifle would correctly describe a select fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge that is lightweight and easily maneuverable as well as shoulder fired.

Examples would be m16, m4 ak47 ak74, etc

[1gewehr]

Assault rifle would correctly describe a select fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge that is lightweight and easily maneuverable as well as shoulder fired.

Examples would be m16, m4 ak47 ak74, etc

THIS!!!  :up:

 

That is the actual definition.  The operative terms are:  Select-fire, intermediate cartridge, and shoulder fired.  Squad automatic weapons have a bipod for a reason.  They are not meant to be fired from the shoulder (but can be).

[Oh Shoot]

"We" don't get to define the term anymore. But state legislatures do. Hell, a .22LR pistol config is an "assault weapon" by law in some places.

 

eBay defines them by not exactly defining them, except an "AK-47" is one. But apparently not a "7.62x39 semi auto firing gas operated rifle".

 

- OS

Edited April 8, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

I am aware of the fact that the M-14 and 16 I carried in Nam would surely be an assault weapon. But what are the LIBS considering an Actual Assault Weapon at the civilian levels we have today is my question?

As it applies to the political gun debate you will look silly if you try to say that an AR-15 isn’t an “assault Rifle” because it isn’t fully automatic. A well trained shooter (or even a poorly trained one in a target rich environment) does not need a machine gun to inflict the same damage as an M-16.

If you find yourself taking that stand; you have lost already.

[JAB]

THIS! Except Sturm translates as "storm" and gewehr is of course rifle. But Assault Rifle is a reasonable translation. Same function.

The US military, if I'm not mistaken, has used the term "assault RIFLE" to describe the M16. A lightweight, select-fire, rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

"Assault WEAPON" is a term invented by the left to demonize a type of firearm that looks menacing to them. It was first used in the late '80s I believe. I won't swear to it, though. Just my memory.

So, if someone calls something an assault rifle, they may be correct. If they use the term assault weapon, they're full of it.

 

You are right, of course.  I should have said that Sturmgewehr literally translates as 'storm rifle' which functionally means 'assault rifle'.

[JAB]

As it applies to the political gun debate you will look silly if you try to say that an AR-15 isn’t an “assault Rifle” because it isn’t fully automatic. A well trained shooter (or even a poorly trained one in a target rich environment) does not need a machine gun to inflict the same damage as an M-16.

If you find yourself taking that stand; you have lost already.

 

Things mean what they mean and 'assault rifle' means (for one thing) a rifle with select fire.  A skilled driver in a Ford Pinto might outrun an unskilled driver in a Ferrari but that doesn't make the Pinto a supercar.

[Jonnin]

As it applies to the political gun debate you will look silly if you try to say that an AR-15 isn’t an “assault Rifle” because it isn’t fully automatic. A well trained shooter (or even a poorly trained one in a target rich environment) does not need a machine gun to inflict the same damage as an M-16.

If you find yourself taking that stand; you have lost already.

Agreed.  Even a glock with 5 or so 30 round mags would be a heck of an attack if the shooter picked a large group of unarmed sheep.
 

But limiting mag size does nothing either...  spend a week practicing and you can reload 10 rounders all day quickly.   Honestly, I would rather an untrained moron shooter had a full auto ... it would run him out of ammo quickly, muzzle rise would make him miss, and all in all, I think the damage would be reduced.  In the hands of an expert, no, but your typical "buy a rifle and go shoot someplace up"  nuts?  Heck yea, let them have the blasted things.

[Ugly]

Those (LWT) that use this term in a political spectrum have no desire to refer to reality. The only purpose is to demonize and legislate, or dictate.

If they say it's scary, it should be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. As stated ab

[bersaguy]

Agreed.  Even a glock with 5 or so 30 round mags would be a heck of an attack if the shooter picked a large group of unarmed sheep.
 

But limiting mag size does nothing either...  spend a week practicing and you can reload 10 rounders all day quickly.   Honestly, I would rather an untrained moron shooter had a full auto ... it would run him out of ammo quickly, muzzle rise would make him miss, and all in all, I think the damage would be reduced.  In the hands of an expert, no, but your typical "buy a rifle and go shoot someplace up"  nuts?  Heck yea, let them have the blasted things.

"QUOTE'     In the hands of an expert, no, but your typical "buy a rifle and go shoot someplace up"  nuts?  Heck yea, let them have the blasted things.  That is actually only the fault of any physician or authority figure that knows a person is nuts and does not report it to the proper authorities. If they can pass all the back ground checks which to this point all the mass shooter have except Sandy Hook in which his mother could. Their not just letting "NUTS" have them. They are following the laws. There cannot be a law written that will prevent a certain amount of the criminal element and or NUT case from obtaining any type of weapon. The only thing that can happen is for more and more shall I say Normal people obtain a fire arm or two and get trained and then get their HCP and we defend ourselves and families as best we can...........................jmho 

[Ray Z]

"Assault Rifle"?

 

There's no such thing.

I've heard of an assault spoon. That's what made Rose O'Donnell fat. 

[Jonnin]

That is actually only the fault of any physician or authority figure that knows a person is nuts and does not report it to the proper authorities. If they can pass all the back ground checks which to this point all the mass shooter have except Sandy Hook in which his mother could. Their not just letting "NUTS" have them. They are following the laws. There cannot be a law written that will prevent a certain amount of the criminal element and or NUT case from obtaining any type of weapon. The only thing that can happen is for more and more shall I say Normal people obtain a fire arm or two and get trained and then get their HCP and we defend ourselves and families as best we can...........................jmho 

That is a whole 'nother issue.  

Shrinks are not qualified to say who will, and who will not, up and go crazy and start hurting people.  No one can predict this and extreme advances in medicine and knowledge would be needed to even start to think about trying.  The folks that have a history of violent, erratic and insane behavior, yea, we can say that those folks probably don't need weapons -- not even a sharp stick, really.   You don't need a PHD in headshrinkery to figure that one out.   The lack of a database on violently disturbed individuals and, for that matter, violent people of all sorts (anyone who has been convicted of any violent offense, in other words, including domestic violence)  is a serious flaw in the background check system, one of several serious flaws in the system.   Totally unrelated to the topic, though.    On a personal note, the only shrinks I will ever trust are the ones that have cured at least one violent person and returned them to a normal life in society, with no ongoing drug regimen or observation or treatment.   Its a short list.

 

 

My point was that full auto is not a magic kill everyone button.  Without practice, its actually less dangerous than an easier to use weapon.