Talk:Assault rifle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Bones Jones (talk | contribs)

1 user group
1,193 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 140: Line 140:
I'm not making an edit here and I work full time so I do not have the time to copy across sources from the development of the Sturmgewehr and AK-47 pages. I'm just saying to have an NPOV and move this article forward in describing how the term "assault rifle" came to describe modern military rifles, the above is a good start for those who want this page to remain encyclopedic instead of trying to lay down poorly outlined definitions. [[Special:Contributions/86.41.240.94|86.41.240.94]] ([[User talk:86.41.240.94|talk]]) 02:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not making an edit here and I work full time so I do not have the time to copy across sources from the development of the Sturmgewehr and AK-47 pages. I'm just saying to have an NPOV and move this article forward in describing how the term "assault rifle" came to describe modern military rifles, the above is a good start for those who want this page to remain encyclopedic instead of trying to lay down poorly outlined definitions. [[Special:Contributions/86.41.240.94|86.41.240.94]] ([[User talk:86.41.240.94|talk]]) 02:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


:You seem to not understand that an assault rifle is defined by fitting '''all''' of the given criteria '''at the same time'''. The fact that other things fit some of the criteria is ''why'' there are multiple criteria. In addition you have a number of serious factual errors: select-fire is defined by being able to select fire mode between semi and auto/burst with no regard as to how it is selected, battle rifles do ''not'' fire intermediate rounds, there is no such thing as a "9mm automatic rifle" because that is called a submachine gun, and effective range is heavily governed by the design of the weapon (for example, the full-length MP5 variants have double the effective range of the K variants). Also, much of your intended summary is dubious: assault rifles are just as often used for defensive actions, guarding checkpoints, etc. They are not used for "volume of fire," that is what machine guns are for. [[User:Bones Jones|Bones Jones]] ([[User talk:Bones Jones|talk]]) 07:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
:You seem to not understand that an assault rifle is defined by fitting '''all''' of the given criteria '''at the same time'''. The fact that other things fit some of the criteria is ''why'' there are multiple criteria. In addition you have a number of serious factual errors: select-fire is defined by being able to select fire mode between semi and auto/burst with no regard as to how it is selected, battle rifles do ''not'' fire intermediate rounds, there is no such thing as a "9mm automatic rifle" because that is called a submachine gun, and effective range is heavily governed by the design of the weapon (for example, the full-length MP5 variants have double the effective range of the K variants). Also, much of your intended summary is dubious: assault rifles are just as often used for defensive actions, guarding checkpoints, etc. They are not used for "volume of fire," that is what machine guns are for. The assault rifle concept was to combine the ability for accurate aimed fire found in a bolt-action rifle with the ability to deliver automatic fire like a subgun in a pinch, sacrificing some of the fire volume of the SMG and some of the range of the rifle to do so. Hence "intermediate" round, you see. It's a compromise. You start using an assault rifle like it's an LMG and it will start doing things you really don't want a gun to do (cooking off, melting, etc), that's why we still have LMGs. [[User:Bones Jones|Bones Jones]] ([[User talk:Bones Jones|talk]]) 07:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


==Who has pending review authority==
==Who has pending review authority==

Revision as of 08:02, 7 November 2019

Template:Vital article


Definition of assault rifle

While the military has a definition, the Merriam Webster dictionary also uses the colloquial definition commonly used in the media and understood by the population. The AR-15 is an assault rifle under the Merriam Webster dictionary definition. Whether NRA flacks are out here or not, a properly cited definition from Merriam-Webster should not be reverted. Please undo your reversion or I will soon. Also, cite your sources on the various examples of what is an what isn't an assault rifle, or that also will be removed.Farcaster (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • OPPOSE CHANGE. We don't go by the colloquial definition given by Merriam Webster but by the internationally accepted and widely used technical definition of "assault rifle". So don't even try to make your edit again... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't up to you to decide which factual citations to include or exclude. That isn't your call. Put it in context if you want, but that's the definition whether you like it or not.Farcaster (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Farcaster: It is up to other editors to decide whether you can add it or not (see WP:CONSENSUS). There is no free speech on Wikipedia... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you truly don't understand what we do out here; factual additions from credible sources is what Wikipedia is all about. Find a way to work it in if you like this article.Farcaster (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Farcaster: Oh yes, I truly do understand what "we do out here". Per WP:UNDUE being sourced is not a reason by itself to include anything. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (my emphasis), which means that the very recent addition of a "colloquial definition" on Merriam Webster doesn't merit even a mention in the article, considering that the technical definition of assault rifle has been used for ~70 years, is used worldwide, and is used in all technical literature/sources. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE CHANGE...For 74 years the term "Assault Rifle" has had a fixed technical definition as stated in the article. The Merriam Webster definition was only changed a couple of months ago. Also, the "Whether NRA flacks are out here or not," comment indicates potential soapboxing. --RAF910 (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several other dictionary entries below that indicate the civilian model is part of the definition.Farcaster (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, in another article from the same source they refer to the civilian model as an assault rifle. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Assault-Weapons-1961494 Farcaster (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose edit - That was a really bad edit, it said M-W defines it as a semi-auto variant of a military assault rifle. WTH? The actual definition is "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire". Note the "also". The also is important. You don't phrase an alternate meaning as the dictionary giving that as the proper definition of the term. Trash edit. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are quite capable of looking at other dictionary entries, which I've done for you to show most dictionaries include the civilian models in the term.Farcaster (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support We describe that which appears prominently in reliable sources, rather than prescribing the "correct" definition. Definitions change over time. Merriam-Webster doesn't change or add to definitions on a whim, so I wouldn't consider this to be a mistake or oversight. My recommendation would be to focus on the conventional military/technical terminology but also mention that the term is sometimes used to refer to a wider range of non-select-fire rifles. –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's ridiculous, inconceivable to remove the Merriam-Webster definition of an assault rifle because somebody likes the military definition better. Of course you include both, and discuss them in proper context. Not sure why this one is even under debate.Farcaster (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The consensus, as defined states otherwise. M-W is the only one I see that states that secondary definition. What about the source I gave? Reb1981 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with your edit is that you tried to make it (twice, why twice?) read like M-W said the primary definition of assault rifle is of a semi-automatic. M-W does not define it that way, it notes that it is also used for that meaning. Their primary definition is of the military selective fire type. I don't have a problem with noting that some people use assault rifle to mean semi-automatic versions of assault rifles (although usually I think they use the made up term "assault weapon"), I have a huge problem with how you phrased that edit. It was very sloppy. You would say that M-W offers an alternative definition of semi-auto not that M-W defines it as semi-auto. If this was intentional on your part it is one of the most misleading edits I have seen on Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)"[reply]
If you like alternate language I'm open to that, to point out there are various definitions. Here is verbatim what M-W says: "also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." I'll forgive your nonsense about sloppy, reads beautifully.Farcaster (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
M-W defines assault rifle as... anything other than selective fire rifles is not accurate and does not read beautifully. I might personally agree with incorporating the alternative definition but consensus above was that the change was not appropriate. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus doesn't really matter and you're a big part of it. You make the edit and it will stay. Ignoring a M-W definition and massive usage of the term in the media should be mentioned, obviously. Don't know why this is even up for discussion; it's fundamental. In fact, one could easily argue that the historical military definition is the one mistaken, as the vast majority of Americans would call an AR-15 an assault rifle. You guys have it backwards.Farcaster (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By making very broad assumptions and not addressing the actual policies you are violating, is not going to persuade any editors.-72bikers (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE CHANGE.I agree with editor -RAF910, Tom, Reb1981, DIYeditor. The term was born out of a new military weapon during WW2. If one source tries to change the term is no sound reason to promote this view. all of the guns here are military rifles, to attempt to make the civilian AR 15 rifle on equal grounds of military rifles would mislead the readers, so to do so would be a big mistake.

One source that would attempt to contradict numerous sources with the length of time of this accepted view would try to place undue weight. The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ." -72bikers (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The M&W change has been noted as questionable and politically motivated. [[1]] When it comes to technical definitions dictionaries aren't always the most reliable sources. We shouldn't change long established definition based on the recent whims of an editor. Springee (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTDIC. We have one article per subject, not one article per word or phrase. The subject described by the alternate, less technical definition is covered at assault weapon. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT I'd like to see the dictionary definitions reflected in the article that indicate assault rifle and assault weapon overlap. If the concern is undue weight from a single source, here are several dictionary definitions that indicate the term "assault rifle" includes the civilian models:

  • The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: "Any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire."
  • The American Heritage dictionary definition: "1. A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat. 2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock."
  • Dictionary.com: "1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. 2. A nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire."
  • Collins English dictionary: "a firearm that is capable of firing multiple rounds in a very short period."
  • The Oxford dictionary definition: "A lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically." As you all can see, only 1 of the 5 has the exclusive narrow military definition alone.Farcaster (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The MW definition was changed only earlier this year and isn't consistent with expert sources. We should stick to expert definitions vs dictionary definitions when there are discrepancies. The second AH definition is non-sensical as it would apply to virtually any rifle including the youth Cricket single shot .22 rifle. [[2]]. The Cricket has a rifled bore and a shoulder stock. "Assault weapon" is not defined in the AH entry. D.com is following the recent MW change. Again, this conflicts with expert definitions. The CE definition is again nonsensical as it would apply to any semi-automatic .22 rifle and arguably a number of bolt action, pump action or lever action rifles. The Oxford definition is the only one that is more or less aligned with expert definitions. Farcaster, at this point please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Springee (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about factual sources, not what you think about factual sources. I've made the case that the common definitions include the civilian models.Farcaster (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expert sources trump vague dictionary definitions. Consensus trumps your quest. WP:DROPTHESTICK Springee (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors above based their view assuming only one source said this, but now I've made it clear there are several dictionaries that say the same thing. Rather than exclude, why not point this out in the body of the article, perhaps in the discussion about the differences between assault rifles and assault weapons? Something like: "While the historical definition of assault rifle is X, several dictionaries now include civilian variants of the military weapons in the definition." Why is this controversial, now that you know how the various dictionaries define the term?Farcaster (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A general-audience dictionary is not a suitable source for defining a technical term. Let's look at Merriam-Webster's definition of "gasoline:"

"a volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture used as a fuel especially for internal combustion engines and usually blended from several products of natural gas and petroleum"

Now going by this definition, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil are all gasoline. You want to go add that to those pages? Bones Jones (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bones you would be correct only if the MW definition said "any volatile flammable liquid..." not "a volatile flammable liquid...". In fact the MW definition is exactly correct, and no it doesn't mean in any way that the MW definition indicates that kerosene, diesel, etc are the same thing - this is the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent". Since your argument is based on a logical fallacy, I see no reason that a general-audience dictionary should not be a suitable source for defining any term, technical or not. Additionally, given that there are literally thousands of mass media news articles published in the last week alone that use this term with no qualification or technical explanation, I'm not sure how you would still qualify this as a "technical term" at all. --20twende (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not correct at all. If you define "cat" as "a creature with four legs and teeth," you have just defined a "cat" in such a way that a dog ("a creature with four legs and teeth") is a cat. The affirmation of the consequent argument would be to conclude that a dog is therefore a cat, while my argument is that this shows the definition, as given, is not sufficient to define what precisely a "cat" is such that it is distinct from any other thing. In this case, if I have "a volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture used as a fuel especially for internal combustion engines and usually blended from several products of natural gas and petroleum" in front of me, that thing is not necessarily going to be gasoline. It's ok as a layman's definition, but deeply useless if I'm, say, trying to run a refinery. This is why you have subject-area dictionaries for technical disciplines, because it is recognised that a general-audience dictionary is not sufficiently precise. Bones Jones (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION. The consensus above was that the MW definition was not a suitable definition and should not be sourced. However, within that consensus it is clear that the MW definition has conflated Assault Rifle with Assault Weapon. Therefore it seems logical to include it under the conflation section. Its a major issue for an American dictionary to mix up a definition under political pretext. I had attempted to add it, when another user cited this discussion. However, this discussion seems to relate to the primary definition at the start of the article.CrescentHawk (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus not to use the MW definition in the article, but a statement such as the one that you added, "On March 31 2018, Webster Dictionary knowingly conflated the terms by including a semiautomatic weapon under the definition of assault rifle after the Parkland Shooting", would need to be supported by a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through news articles, only two sources seem to exist at the time - American Military News & the Federalist. Would either be considered a reliable source? CrescentHawk (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to post links here to the two specific sources that you're interested in citing for the statement, so that other editors can examine the information in context. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be concerned about including this as some sort of controversy. I understand that some see it as a PC move by MW. That might be true. However, it's also possible MW added the second definition only because they have some method for deciding when language has evolved and thus the common parlance definition has extended beyond the expert definition. So MW may not be trying to push a new definition so much as just responding to how others are evolving the term. Given that the claims imply an agenda on the part of MW I would argue that WP:EXTRAORDINARY would apply to any inclusion. Springee (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right in that the links I've found are gun sources (no other media brought attention to the change at the time) - http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/ and also https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/merriam-webster-definition-assault-rifle/. CrescentHawk (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have added a badly needed POV flag to this article. There are many reasonable requests below to address the fact that modern american English uses this phrase very differently from the antiquated military usage, and I have added multiple, well-sourced edits that would help to clarify this which have been reverted for spurious reasons. In particular, please note that:

(1) The main sources for this definition date to WWII, and appears as a newly-authored military definition as late as 49 years ago, but I can find no more recently authored sources that stick solely to this definition. We all know that language changes more frequently than once a century or so, especially for frequently used verbiage, so there is no reason to assert that this usage should still be the only valid definition and/or usage of the term (2) I have spoken with US military personnel, they neither use nor were even aware of, this particular definition of the term, nor where other avid gun owners/users that I spoke with (3) Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, and other MAIN language definition sources have been updated to include the alternative definitions that this article has stubbornly resisted (4) I did a study, pulling up the top 10 articles containing the phrase "assault rifle" from news.google.com. All 10, 100% of my sample, were using the phrase in the alternative definition that includes semi-automatic rifles. The simple fact is that modern American journalism has redefined this phrase almost completely (I would suggest that, based on this trend, the alternative definition will soon become the primary definition)

To fail to include this alternative definition, and even more so to even fail to acknowledge this alternative definition, this article takes the stance primarily promoted by gun manufacturers and gun-rights advocacy groups, which oppose of the alternative, more wide-ranging usage of the phrase because they feels it reflects poorly on the products they sell or own (or want to have unregulated ownership of). This does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standard as I understand it.

In case you want to attack my own neutrality I am a gun owner, hunter, and NRA member - I just happen to think that this pedantic argument over the definition of this term serves only to hinder a productive discussion about firearm safety and regulation (ok, and also produce endless smug and insufferable commentary from so-called experts who frequently cite this page as a source) --20twende (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The change is not a good idea Scrambling the distinction and common meaning is not useful. "Assault rifle" referring to weapons suitable for military use, including selective fire which is the common way to say "capable of fully automatic fire". Vs. "Assault weapon" a common term in the US with no specific definition / widely varying uses in the US, one common one being "look-alikes" that do not have the above capability. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "scramble the distinction", the article simply needs to acknowledge that there is a military usage for this term and also (more recently) a common meaning, which are different. You can see from the edit history that I added 3 separate edits, with citations, exactly attempting to clarify this distinction - that there is a military term and now the same term ("assault rifle", not "assault weapon") is being commonly used in all modes of American English to denote weapons that do not meet that military definition, and instead includes certain semi-automatic rifles as well. Each time those edits were nearly instantly reverted. If this article seeks to define "Assault Rifle", it must acknowledge the separate usages/meanings. You can gripe all you want that the media is conflating the terms "assault Rifle" with "assault weapon", but the simple fact is that the term "assault rifle" has been commonly used for many years in a way that is not consistent with the military definition. Languages change, and outdated military manuals and history books cannot be used to control those changes. Imagine the confusion of an average citizen, when hearing in the media that an assault rifle was used in a mass shooting in El Paso, who then looks at this page to see that an "assault rifle" must be capable of automatic fire (meaning a gun illegal to buy in the US) only to find out that the gun was in fact legal to acquire and own. From my perspective, failure to acknowledge this alternative definition can only be politically motivated, as it would only serve the purposes of the gun lobby and gun-rights activists, who dislike the term being applied to currently legal weapons.--20twende (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a dictionary. We write articles about subjects, not words. We define the subject of this article in the first sentence of the lead, and there is not a consensus to change the subject of this article. That isn't a NPOV issue. VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed it when this topic was discussed nearly a year back and my view hasn't changed. The scope of the article is clear. Yes, some sources incorrectly describe semi-auto rifles as assault rifles. However, adding that scope to this topic would make a mess. I do lament that Wikipedia doesn't have a good article for civilian rifles that are commonly referred to as assault weapons. I believe the article that is now the AR-15 style rifle article used to cover the topic before the name was changed. Anyway, I would support creating such an article but this isn't it. Springee (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the arguments and oppose the change. Assault rifles have had and continue to have a specific military meaning. Assault weapons have a general political and legal meaning. The two subjects are just different. Conflating the two in one article is an invitation to constant edit warring. And to be clear about my own neutrality, I am neither a gun owner nor NRA member.---- Work permit (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we made the change, we would have one article that is about two completely different topics. Completely different legally (one is legal for civilians to own in the US and one isn't) functionally, (one is fully automatic ("machine gun")capable and the other isn't and usage (one is used by the military and not civilians, the other is used by civilians but not by the military) North8000 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical vs Colloquial Debates

Most modern rifles are simply not built for "assaulting" a position. The rifle being attributed to Hitler was specifically designed for section attacks or storming firmly held enemy positions or fortifications. Hence it's name Sturmgewehr. "Sturm" meaning storm in German obviously, and "gewehr" meaning gun. The history behind it is they largely wanted more effective and lethal automatic sub machine guns that weren't big ass machine guns. Where does "assault" come into that except as a mistranslation surely? Genuine question for Germans here, does storm equate to assault? They're two completely different words in English. The term was not intended to be an umbrella term for all rifles like that. It specifically was the name of that rifle. Bizarre. Incredibly poorly sourced too.

To base a definition on a fuzzy pixelated single document from 1970 is bad to start with, outdated at best, and straight up wrong at worst.

I've seen plenty of civilians use the term "assault carbine" before too despite carbine historically referencing a cavalry rifle and in modern usage a short barrel rifle for urban room to room engagements or for ease of use on tanks/vehicles. Nothing to do with "assaulting" or "storming" a position. Carbine is generally the term most Western armed forces have used for smaller rifles designed for close quarter engagements. "Assaulting" as a term or function of the rifle is far too vague for actual military operations. They're simply often not designed or used for that in majority of cases.

My solution to all of this is to drop this whole "US army definition" or cite field manuals that show a good definition of an assault rifle. It is a civilian/lawful categorization and classification of military rifles. Most importantly: the "selective fire" definition doesn't work either because the Steyr AUG and possibly other automatic rifles doesn't have a selector switch, it's purely down to trigger pressure or in some cases an actual lock on the weapon (ALO) that I believe requires a tool (correct me on that if I'm wrong). Yet the rifle is fully automatic and can be made semi-automatic. The characteristic of having a "selective fire switch" is purely arbitrary and serves no purpose. You could purposefully make a rifle to defeat this definition by locking the user of the rifle into one mode and making it "non-selective". If I then give that rifle to a platoon of infantry, the rifle has no selective fire for them. Now you could stretch the "selector" term to mean anything that allows someone to select a firing mode, but this is not unique to assault rifles. Every other class of firearm, has a selector.

Most of the other characteristics are not exclusive to "assault rifles" either.

  • - intermediate-power cartridge - how is that characteristic of assault rifles if battle rifles use the same munition. ammunition choice has nothing to do with the ergonomics or design of the weapon in reality and in fact most assault rifle designs can be converted to fire different calibers of munitions.
  • - Box magazine - There are drum magazines for rifles and box magazines for battle rifles. this characteristic is not unique to assault rifles and does not identify them. Probably the least identifying characteristic of all listed.
  • - 300 meter effective range minimum - This would again possibly exclude 9mm automatic rifles that would meet all other criteria. ignores physics entirely by assuming the effective range is largely attributed to the rifle. it isn't. this really just seems like someone took a common characteristic of most rifle munitions and said "this will do".

To completely cut out the nonsense, "assault" has always been an attempt to categorize what should be called "military rifles historically used for close range offensive attacks on enemy positions". From a military perspective they are fully automatic rifles designed for offensive action against an enemy position. I would open with that honestly because for both political sides that is actually the most accurate description of the purpose of the term. That would actually be somewhat neutral and historically accurate as opposed to going with these nonsense characteristics. So as an example:

"An assault rifle is a semi or fully automatic military rifle that is used for offensive action in taking an enemy position or fortification. The term has been popularized in print to define the evolution of the infantry rifle from a single shot rifle to a semi or fully automatic multi-purpose rifle. First developed in World War II to meet the requirements of a more effective and lethal sub machine gun with greater range; they are typically used in urban close quarters combat and for overwhelming or pinning an enemy position with sheer volume of fire."

How this politically will moderately satisfy everyone:

Left-wing: Acknowledges assault rifles are military grade weapons for offensive action. They are. Completely fair to argue the AK47 was not designed to be an M14 or marksman rifle. It is by design a 30 round light machine gun for clearing a trench or a room. It was meant to replace sub machine guns on the battlefield.

Conservatives: Drops arbitrary characteristics. Historically accurate. No longer attempts to lump all semi and fully automatic rifles into one category.

People interested in the facts and historians: Largely describes the evolution of the infantry battlefield rifle to the modern equivalents.

I'm not making an edit here and I work full time so I do not have the time to copy across sources from the development of the Sturmgewehr and AK-47 pages. I'm just saying to have an NPOV and move this article forward in describing how the term "assault rifle" came to describe modern military rifles, the above is a good start for those who want this page to remain encyclopedic instead of trying to lay down poorly outlined definitions. 86.41.240.94 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not understand that an assault rifle is defined by fitting all of the given criteria at the same time. The fact that other things fit some of the criteria is why there are multiple criteria. In addition you have a number of serious factual errors: select-fire is defined by being able to select fire mode between semi and auto/burst with no regard as to how it is selected, battle rifles do not fire intermediate rounds, there is no such thing as a "9mm automatic rifle" because that is called a submachine gun, and effective range is heavily governed by the design of the weapon (for example, the full-length MP5 variants have double the effective range of the K variants). Also, much of your intended summary is dubious: assault rifles are just as often used for defensive actions, guarding checkpoints, etc. They are not used for "volume of fire," that is what machine guns are for. The assault rifle concept was to combine the ability for accurate aimed fire found in a bolt-action rifle with the ability to deliver automatic fire like a subgun in a pinch, sacrificing some of the fire volume of the SMG and some of the range of the rifle to do so. Hence "intermediate" round, you see. It's a compromise. You start using an assault rifle like it's an LMG and it will start doing things you really don't want a gun to do (cooking off, melting, etc), that's why we still have LMGs. Bones Jones (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who has pending review authority

I just encountered something that I have never encountered before. I made an edit and find that it is pending review. How does one obtain authority like that. I certainly would like reviewing authority. Many others would. Then I checked this talk page and realize that this article is politically current, weapons manufacturers and the NRA as well as anti rifle lobbies have an interest in it, and I easily see that it can be used in social and political discussions. I doubt that WP can be quoted or used in atrial. Nether the less, because of the contentious nature of the subject I feel that a Disclaimer is appropriate in the first sentence of the lead.Oldperson (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: Your Teahouse question about this appears to have been answered by some other editors; so, please refer to those for reference. As for adding a disclaimer, please see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing this article for the general public

It is important that this article be written in a manner that is comprehensible to the public, who use WP as an authoritative and respected voice.

To that end. The general public, has no idea what words like selective fire mean, they are not cops, military experienced, hunters, sport shooters and weapons aficionados. Many do not even understand the diff between automatic, and semi automatic .

They don’t understand the difference between an assault rifle and an assault style weapon. Nor do they care, they see a person entering a facility with what appears to be, and actually is, a weapon of war and are rightfully alarmed.

Even an experienced vet, one who routinely trained and carried an M-16, can not tell the difference on sight between an AR-15 and an M-16. While one is technically an assault rifle,both are weapons of war. Designed specifically for that purpose and which fire a cartridge that is designed to kill a human, even if it doesn’t hit a vital organ.

While it is extremely difficult, and illegal without BATF license to even own conversion parts to render an AR-15 into an M-16, there are these parts available, at considerable cost, there are still bump stocks which increase the rate of fire that one can pick up, and there are instructions on the internet as to how to increase the rate of fire, legally, without conversion.

Weapons manufacturers, their lobby the NRA, and paranoid “patriots” seek to muddy the waters by quibbling over the definition of an assault rifle. The AR-15 might not technically be an assault rifle,but the shopper at WalMart, congregant in a synagogue or church doesn’t know that. It is, however, a weapon of war, designed for one purpose to kill humans.

There is one significant difference between an AR-15, and a hunting rifle. The former was designed to kill and seriously damage humans via the cartridge, whereas the hunting rifle was designed to take out large game.

The bullet fired by the A-15 impacts with such high velocity that it has a hydraulic shock effect, it starts to tumble when it hits soft tissue, if it hits bone it shatters the bone, seriously It is designed to so wound the enemy that they will bleed to death and be disabled.

It is not a hunting weapon, unless the game you are hunting is human. It is a weapon of war automatic or semi automatic or single fire.

This article should be written such as not to obfuscate, mislead and dull the mind of the general public looking for information on this highly contentious political issue WP owes that to its readers and contributors. Oldperson (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You started talking about terminology and then transitioned to general musings. Let's focus on the first bit. What specific terms in the article do you think are too technical? VQuakr (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the collapse header added by Lmatt, down a few paragraphs to expose the first part of Oldperson's argument, which was relevant to improving the article. Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the collapse header: "Not related to improving the article, hatting per WP:NOTFORUM Lmatt (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)". Lmatt (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldperson: As you have unhatted this dicussion thread, I am hoping this means you are interested in responding to the specific points raised by VQuakr (talk · contribs)? I do share your legitimate concern about terminology, so I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on improving the article. Lmatt (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lmatt I already have over a month ago.I repeat the term "Selective Fire" is not a term that the general public is familiar with, only military, ex military, sportsmen and gun freaks know what selective fire means. In the same manner that civilians who aren't gun nuts don't understand the difference between automatic or semi automatic, have absolutely no idea of what a sear is, or even a bump stock and do not know that one can convert an AR-15 to an M-16 (illegally and with difficulty but it can be done).Oldperson (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what do "the general public" call "selective fire"? If they have a term for it, then maybe use that (if it's still accurate enough).
But if, as I strongly suspect, there is simply no other comparable term for this, then we should stick with it (rather than using a less accurate term). Which also means that we have to adequately explain it, but that's what we do. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The unsupported assertion that an abstract group of people ("the general public") don't know a particular term is worthless. If they're curious what it means, they can click on it. The "general public" probably don't know what an "ungulate" is either, that doesn't mean the term can't be used in the lede of "rhinoceros."
And no, you can't "convert an AR15 to an M16." M16 is the military designation for a specific type of full-length AR, the only way to "convert" one is to swap out parts and then sell it to the US military. Also an experienced vet can tell the difference between an AR15 and an M16, the three-position selector with a marked and working "auto" position is something of a giveaway, as is having "M16" on the magwell and usually some variation of "PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT." In fact, a lot of firearms experts can tell you the "A" variant and approximate year of manufacture of an M16 just by looking at it. Bones Jones (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This "abstract group of people" just happens to be "the general public"and they are not so abstract, and you assume that the reader, and it is this "abstract group of people" for which is built the encyclopedia called Wikipedia, do not read all the way through an article nor do they click on blue links(or even know to click), but we know that don't we because that is the reason there is so much discourse, edits and reverts over articles like this. The obvious intent is to influence the "abstract group of people" who use google and wikipedia for information.Is it not so.Oldperson (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you kindly not shove replies in the middle of people's posts? And honestly, we're supposed to write the article for people who aren't going to read it properly? What kind of nonsense argument is this? Bones Jones (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here again you speak as one is fully knowledgeable of the subject, unlike the "abstract group of people". It seems not to be common knowledge amongst "the abstract group of people" that an AR-15 is different than an M16. To Yes technically the AR-15 is substantially different than an M-16, but not "the abstract group of people who use WP for source of information. I should have been more precise in my language, but I was speaking as a member of the general public, not a "gun nut".An AR-15, built before 1985 can be converted to Selective Fire/Full auto, not legally unless one is licensed,but legalities don't stop those intent on wreaking havoc. So yes there is a diff twixt an AR 15 and an M16, but as you say, an experienced user or professional can spot the diff, but not the general public who sees an AR 15 slung over a shoulder.Oldperson (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, any AR15 can be converted legally to full-auto, the legality is on the components used to perform the conversion, they have to be made before the US machine gun registry was closed by the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 (post #10 in your link is correct in this regard). Also, the overwhelming majority of the "general public" are not Americans and this issue does not affect them in either direction, as they will never see a person carrying an AR15 in public in the first place. In addition, illegally modified fullauto ARs are not a common issue in US gun crime. For that matter, rifles are not: most gun crime is committed with semi-automatic pistols or revolvers.
We are not trying to preserve the ignorance of the reader, we are supposed to tell them more than what they already think they know. It is widely agreed by firearms experts across the world that one of the defining features of an assault rifle is that it is select-fire. This is nothing to do with politics unless you assume the entire world consists of America and all assault rifles are AR15 derivatives. How is any of what you're saying relevant to the many types of assault rifle which have never been sold to civilians? Bones Jones (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a rule (there isn't) that every word in Wikipedia is one that the general public already knows the meaning of, then we'd need to wipe a good chunk of the encyclopedia. The term can be further explained if needed.North8000 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but not relevant. People don't carry ungulates in shoulder slings.Oldperson (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People don't carry rifles in shoulder slings either, they carry them with shoulder slings. And it's quite pertinent as an example of where specialised terminology is used because it is appropriate to do so. Bones Jones (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Selective fire"

@Oldperson: As per your concern that the public may not be familar with the term, selective fire, I changed the lead sentence to An assault rifle is an automatic rifle but was reverted. Lmatt (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: MOS:LEADSENTENCE states The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. The current wording An assault rifle is a self-loading rifle, capable of automatic firing, that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine does not appear to achieve this. I made the following change to the lead:

An assault rifle is a self-loading rifle, capable of automatic firing, that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Lmatt (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

"Self-loading" isn't any more accessible than "selective-fire", but it is less precise. The proposed alternate wording is more verbose with no offsetting benefit. VQuakr (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a concern that people will not understand select fire we could add a footnote to the entry. With that, if a user hovers their mouse over the note a more detailed description will appear. "Automatic" isn't as good since that may not apply to rifles that have a burst fire setting. "Self loading" is not correct as that applies to basically all semi-auto firearms. What if we crib the opening sentence from the Select Fire article? Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode We could say something like, "... a selective-fire rifle (selectable between single shot, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing) that uses an..."  ? Springee (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the rewrite of the lead, I understand the M16A2 did not have a full automatic mode, that it only allowed for a 3 round burst mode. And by any common definition, the M16A2 is an assault rifle. So therefore while the rewrite of the lede may be more easily understood, it is also incorrect. selective fire is hyperlinked, so people unfamiliar with the term can read about it.---- Work permit (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective fire is a precise term and linked. And it can be clarified if needed. "Automatic" would exacerbate current confusion that comes from the common practice of abbreviating "semi-automatic" as "automatic". North8000 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

Attribution to Adolf Hilter

The translation of "Sturmgewehr" as "assault rifle" is inaccurate, and appears to be politically motivated. A "Storm" in German is an infantry unit; it does not mean "assault" (nor does it translate correctly as "storm"). A correct translate of Sturmgewehr would be "infantry rifle." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:120A:962:F46F:1EF5:E045:9508 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh blah blah, "politically motivated", sure. The article doesn't say "Sturmgewehr" means "assault rifle", so there, nor is Hitler involved here.

    If you have a moment: "Sturm" means "storm". "Storm" in German means nothing; it's a name. The name "Sturmgewehr" does have a Hitlerian connection, according to one of the sources in StG 44, and you can find that here also. So, I'd say study German and read books. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sturm=Storm, gewehr=rifle, literally storm rifle. It’s function though was to serve as a weapon of shock, in an assault. So Assault rifle is a fairly inaccurate translation, most languages have words that are not able to be literally translated into English and vice versa, so reasonable approximations have to be made.Oldperson (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting translation of Sturmgewehr as assault rifle. Check linguee, or Leo, which both agree; and, as Drmies already pointed out, the article Stg 44. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition there is outside precedent for "sturm=assault" in the form of Sturmgeschütz which is almost universally translated as "assault gun." "Sturm" is as in "to storm a castle" and so is rendered in English as either "storm" or "assault:" "assault" is a better translation because it shows the precise sense in which "storm" is being used. I believe OP is thinking of Sturmtruppen which is usually translated as "stormtroopers." Also, it was already being called an assault rifle in 1945. Bones Jones (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is trying to act as a definitive source for assault rifle labeling for future court "reasoning" for evidence. 2601:145:500:8011:B5EF:BAEE:28B6:AA51 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:145:500:8011:B5EF:BAEE:28B6:AA51:FWIW Even the Oath Keepers refer to them asAssault Weaons
This page is not trying to "be" anything other than what it is, an encyclopedia article. What others do with it is up to them. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F925010132