Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Firearms

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1

I notice that the film Black Hawk Down is footnoted as a source (twice). I am not sure if a film is a reliable source for determining the stopping power of a bullet. Thoughts? --Eyrian 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a book too, one that's on the reading list at USMA and famous for bringing to light the stopping power issues of the 5.56 greentips. I think it's reliable enough, and Mark Bowden is certainly notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a valid source because it's opinion. Empirical data, possibly involving ballistics gelatin would be valid. Many notable people, mostly politicians, make statements that are patently ridiculous (.50BMG taking down airplane, etc). BHD is on the reading list because it tells an important story, not because the 5.56 round has problems. 140.247.146.103 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....50BMG was used to take down many airplanes in WWII. First hand accounts of observed effect are not opinion.Reginhild 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.50BMG was used in machine guns to take down low flying planes. I was referring to the popular myth that a single shot from a modern .50 calibre rifle can take down a jetliner. 140.247.146.103 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that could really improve this article is inline citations. I'm not saying it's not cited, I'm just saying the citations are not added into the document with the ref or citeweb tags. The article cannot improve to good article or better without the citations. Want to help me improve it that way? (I'm asking you because the large majority of my time is spent now with my wikiproject and reconnaissance/infantry related articles, and I don't ahve time to do it singlehandedly here. ) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it to my watch list and get to it at another time. This article was pretty trashed and will require some more time... time I don't have right now.--Asams10 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to read this carefully to make specific comments, but in general what has been done so far addresses many of my complaints. Mark Bowden is a reputable author but there are also web-published OIF After-Action reports that cite problems with the 5.56 NATO round. IIRC the 101st Airborne deployed to Iraq with M14s and were very happy they did due to its much greater effective range. The 82nd Airborne used M4s which are virtually useless due to insufficient velocity (citation of Fackler’s work would help a lot on this point) to fragment beyond about 115 yards. The point being there are other sources that could be referenced to point up the deficiencies of the 5.56 platforms.

I was never a fan of the body armor section - except to the extent it was a "thumbnail" to invite the reader to click on a hyperlink so they could better understand the arms race between assault rifles and body armor. Currently the assault rifle is effective as we aren't facing many enemies wearing quality body armor, but this condition can not be presumed to prevail in perpetuity. Body armor will very soon dramatically affect assault rifles, but it is still OT beyond a mention to my way of thinking.

The list of features that were supposed to be required of all future assault rifles was a mess. It was very inconsistent in the level of detail of the various bulleted points and most of those features seemed to be features of existing assault rifles, not features that would make future assault rifles different or superior.

I will have to read the intro to the page again, but some short list of attributes that defines an assault rifle might be useful and THEN a short list of what new technologies are appearing on the scene that might address the challenge of body armor MIGHT be helpful. I think I have covered it pretty well though in the summary paragraph. The USMC has M240's in eval with Ti receivers for example, but that is not an assault rifle technology - yet. There is no mention of electronic primer systems either and these are COTS from Remington as we speak, but not used by any assault rifle I know of. The Israelis have a gun system that is made to shoot around corners and features a hi-rez digital optical targeting system and small LCD screen so the shooter can see and shoot around the corner. If we throw in electronic primers the system immediately gets the ability to be fired by remote control from around the corner, block or world. At some point though this becomes a discussion that is inappropriate to assault rifles and more appropriate to target acquisition systems.

Mostly I wanted to check in as I had a message asking for my help and I wanted to see what had been done. So far I like what I see.

Solidpoint 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with M4s has more to do with the short barrel than it does with the round itself: a shorter barrel means lower round velocity. The M4 is totally different in purpose than the M16 - it was pushed through after panama and replaced M3 and a number of handguns. It's a short and small weapon, not a main battle rifle.

Furthermore, according to globalsecurity.org (not sure how to link the article) the M16A1, which is far inferior in terms of the ammunition loads it was used with when compared to the A2 and A3 variants, was "judged far more effective" than the M14 in real combat, and produced twice the casualties.

On the topic of Assault Rifle classifications, I think it would be fair to say that an AR is a select fire weapon chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Something about weight would also likely be necessary, I suppose, and maybe purpose to differentiate from a SAW. 140.247.146.103 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added this important distinction back to the intro as weapons such as the M1 Carbine did not have full auto capabilities and yet that platform is still considered by many to be an assault rifle. In addition, since US doctrine favors sustained, aimed fire over "spray and pray" it is entirely possible that weapons without full auto (does the M4 have full-auto capability?) capabilities, that are fielded and generally viewed as assault rifles, will return to the scene. Solidpoint 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be a prick about this, but the distinction being made is incorrect. The M1 Carbine is NOT an assault rifle as it lacks the capability for full-automatic fire. The M2 and M3 carbines can be classified as such being selective-fire weapons. Selective fire means that it has BOTH semi- and full-auto modes. Selective fire requires BOTH modes. A semi-automatic only firearm cannot be classified as an assault rifle, but a firearm without the capability for semi-auto fire CAN. Putting the term selective fire in confuses the subject here. Further the M4 Carbine and M16A2 ARE capable of full-automatic fire in bursts. The definition of full-auto is that it fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, even if limited mechanically at some point. Interestingly, one can remove the burst mechanism from the M16A2 (and M4) quite simply and utilize it as an automatic rifle.--Asams10 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the M4 does NOT have a full auto mode, and in spite of your late night rewrite of the entire page on selective-fire, (which has left dozens of pages on assault rifles with internal contradictions btw) your insistence that an assault rifle MUST have a full auto mode is not widely shared by civilian or military shooters. The idea of selective fire is that you can chose between single-shot and some other burst mode, up to and including a full auto mode where the weapon will fire until the trigger is released or ammo is exhausted. I think you are being somewhat obtuse to ignore the persistent rewrites of the intro section and insisting instead that your definition is the correct one. I reached this conclusion after reading reviews of assault rifles for the last few hours and noted that in many cases the authors go out of their way to distinguish between weapons that have 3-5 shot burst modes and those that have full-auto capabilities. I am also almost certain that narrowing the definition of assault rifles to require they have a full auto mode will not stand the test of time as the trend, both in western combat doctrine, and in assault rifles becoming more powerful to deal with longer range requirements and body armor, will be away from full auto fire because more the powerful cartridges that are being contemplated will make full auto fire poorly controlled fire. While in general I don't like the idea of perception being definition, I think in this case what are commonly believed to be assault rifles are excluded by your more narrow definition. I'd like to see some references to support your point of view, or else I am forced to conclude that your definition is in fact just a POV violation. Solidpoint 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solidpoint, please don't personally attack me again. You are wrong, but I'm not going to take it up here in a personal manner. Your edits give me the impression you have no idea what the difference between semi-automatic, automatic, burst-fire, and selective fire are. I'll try not to patronize you, but please read the selective fire page for a clearer definition and DO NOT personally attack me again. I am narrowing no definitionis and what I wrote in the selective fire article was true. The article was wrong, and I corrected it. I neither said nor did I imply that an assault rifle could not be limited to burst-modes and, in fact, burst fire is fully-automatic fire. You'll need to do some research before you respond.--Asams10 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Select fire means there are more than one modes of fire that can be selected between. I mean, even the M1918A2 BAR's with two rates of automatic fire are select fire. About the only "assualt rifle" I can think of without select fire is the non-adopted Walther prototype that competed against the Haenel version that fired automatically from an open bolt, IIRC. The only other exceptions that can reasonably be argued are the Heavy Barreled M16-variants intended for use as SAWs and firing open bolt... Deathbunny 08:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all select-fire weapons are assault rifles, but all assault rifles are select-fire weapons. SenorBeef 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SenorBeef is correct. All assault rifles in use and being considered for use are select-fire. Selection is between single semi-auto fire and another fire rate (or two). There are two round burst, three round burst, and full auto alternative ROF that I know of with assault rifles. (the converse is not true - while all assault rifles are select-fire there are select-fire weapons that are not assault rifles...just like both revolvers and auto-pistols both require barrels but having a barrel does not make a pistol a revolver)Reginhild 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning a statement above: Burst fire is not solely fully-automatic fire. You can fire controlled bursts from a fully automatic weapon or you can fire bursts from a burst limited fire weapon. The US Military made a big distinction when they went from fully auto to burst selection with their assault rifles.Reginhild 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's a bit ridiculous to use the movie Black Hawk Down as a source for claiming that 5.56 doesn't have the stopping power of 7.62. It's definitely not NPOV -- using specious sources and trying to use wikipedia as a platform to advance a position would be the opposite of neutral. Please remember that both bullets are very small, much smaller than a perosn. They can't knock someone over - the rounds just don't have the momentum to do so. The wound channels created by the bullets hitting flesh might put someone into shock, which would lead to them falling over, but otherwise the concept of stopping power is just mythical. Shot placement is really what matters if you're looking to take someone down - destroying the brain or otherwise damaging CNS, or causing massive trauma to the chest are the only ways. Having a slightly larger round matters far less than where that round is placed, and movie commandos are not a valid source. If you have real sources regarding 5.56 and a higher incidence of failure to take down enemies than 7.62, then you should cite them. Otherwise, I think that section should be redacted at the very minimum to fit in with Wikipedia standards. 140.247.146.103 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

308 win (7.62 NATO) loaded with 168gr bullets will put out somewhere between 2500 and 2700 ft/lbs. a 5.56 round with a 62gr bullet at 3100 fps puts out just 1323 ft/lbs. also, beyond 200m there have been lots of field reports and independent tests showing that the 5.56 doesnt fragment at all, or fragments far less. while civilian ammo in this round (basically .223) has combated this to some extent with bullets especially designed to fragment and/or mushroom (ie the nosler ballistic tips and similar), military ball ammo (FMJ) has no such bullets (iirc this is governed by the Geneva convention). now let me address your second statement, that they couldnt knock something down. did you take physics? a foot pound is a unit of work, ie force times distance. one foot pound means the work required to move one pound one foot. thus a bullet with 2500 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle could theoretically move a 2.25 ton block 1 foot across a frictionless surface (assuming an inelastic collision). if you dont think that knocks a person down... well go shoot a tub of ballistic gel or something i guess. (one ballistic table here [1] ). on the other hand, i certainly agree with you on movies being a bad source, but the basic argument is true. Qleem 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand that Mark Bowden was an actual soldier and the book Black Hawk Down gives his actual accounts of combat. Black Hawk Down was discussed earlier and is a credible source that cannot be ignored. A soldier's first hand account of effects observed in combat (note this is not considered opinion) is more credible than any other ideas one might have without actual first hand evidence. Shot placement does also matter and one should feel free to cite first hand accounts. Here is some interesting reading: SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03 It discusses "The Operational Suitability, Lethality, and Maintainability and Reliability of weapons, ammunition and weapon accessories while conducting operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Look at Section I.b.M16 Rifle Ammunition Issue#3 Lethality. Another interesting source is to look at police databases on one stop shot percentages by type of ammunition. Reginhild 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark bowden is not a solider and he was not in mogodishu he not a documenteryer(i have no idea what the offical word is) he is a journolist and he tells the book as if he was a journalist and as if he was there when in relaity he was not. but still he is a relible source(ForeverDEAD 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article seems too long to me, cluttered with information on other types of weapons and on particular weapons. Would anyone be opposed to severely cutting down the article, taking out perhaps more than half of the history and future sections? Ergbert 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universally agreed upon definition of assault rifles; the respected authors Maxim Popenker and Anthony G. Williams, for example, do not use the definition that was added to the article, and consider the Cei Rigotti and Fedorov Avtomat to be assault rifles. Two of the sources provided were at least in part by the same person, and the third, if it provides exactly the same definition, probably just copied on of the others, or vice versa; it's really the same as if I were to provide the book Assault Rifle by Popenker and Williams, as well as their separate websites, in an attempt to show consensus where there is none. Ergbert 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popenker and Williams are indeed not the only ones who use sloppy terminology in describing any shoulder fired self-loading gun an assault rifle. The cited sources are only those who enumerate the cited characteristics of assault rifles compared to those of battle rifles and automatic rifles. There is no point in boasting a listing of hundreds of books and magazine articles I personally red over the last 30 years in different languages. There is definitely a consensus in literature about a narrow definition of what an assault rifle is, and what it sets apart from other types of firearms like battle rifles. And indeed, there is a lot of sloppy use in terminology, but this should not brand mark a correct definition as “disputed”. --Dutchguy 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that Maxim Popenker and Anthony G. Williams are not very good sources of information. While they have churned out volumes of articles on the subject of Small Arms. I have found their work sloppy and some of their personal associates questionable. As for the definition in the article it seems to be a combination of the US Army definition and the political definition.Paulwharton 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it should be removed as this artical is about the assault rifle as a whole not just a specific country. That section is more gun politics then actualy about the weapons itself. (ForeverDEAD 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think a section describing the differences between the two similar sounding concepts is useful, it clears up any confusion. --Sus scrofa 11:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]