Talk:Assault rifle: Difference between revisions
TeeTylerToe (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, in the English language, the term 'assault rifle' has expanded to include the 'technically incorrect' of civilian semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. This usage of the term warrants mention in the first paragraph, if only to explain the technical inaccuracy of its usage. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269|2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269]] ([[User talk:2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269|talk]]) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, in the English language, the term 'assault rifle' has expanded to include the 'technically incorrect' of civilian semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. This usage of the term warrants mention in the first paragraph, if only to explain the technical inaccuracy of its usage. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269|2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269]] ([[User talk:2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269|talk]]) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:That's right. The NRA doesn't have a monopoly on defining firearms-related terms. One of the sources used is the Encyclopedia Britannica, says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition." So even the article's own sources contradict the narrow definition that some editors insist upon. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC) |
:That's right. The NRA doesn't have a monopoly on defining firearms-related terms. One of the sources used is the Encyclopedia Britannica, says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition." So even the article's own sources contradict the narrow definition that some editors insist upon. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
::As far as I know, the 11th commandment written by... was it moses on god's command wasn't "The definition of an assault rifle is bla bla bla". So, ever since that enormous oversight (who is this god person anyway?) I don't really know where an authoritative definition of "assault rifle" would come from. Take, for instance, the huge argument about which was the first "assault rifle". With some rifles having burst but not full auto some people just say select fire, but the semi auto only M27 seems to prove that even that is not a hard requirement which isn't a particularly shocking revelation. In the end, different experts probably have different definitions. It would be deceptive to say or imply that there is any one set in stone definition or that what does and does not fall into the assault rifle category, or that it is not subject to debate. Some editors might try to use original research on this page to argue that one definition is the one true definition or another definition is the one true definition or that there exists one true definition. I haven't looked into it, but presumably all that can be said is that the first "assault rifle" is subject to debate. Could it have been, for instance, the m1 carbine? The Vollmer M35? Where is the exact line between smg and aw ammunition? etc.[[User:TeeTylerToe|TeeTylerToe]] ([[User talk:TeeTylerToe|talk]]) 03:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:01, 18 June 2016
| This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The SturmGewehr being the first assault rifle. (Sorry if this is already a topic)
I read on the page for the SturmGewehr page that it was the first modern assault rifle, I'm just saying that that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benners88 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've recently read about the Fedorov Avtomat. Isn't that technically the first assault rifle? I noticed it being mentioned above, but I don't get what the conclusion is. Is it or is it not, and why? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Fedorov Avtomat doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle since it was chambered for the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka "full power" rifle cartridge, and not an intermediate cartridge. Thomas.W talk 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- You can argue that the first "assault rifle" appeared in California in recent decades, because it's the first time there was a legal definition of what "assault rifle" actually meant. Otherwise, just what do we mean by the term? Invented? In service? In bulk service? With the performance of a military rifle? As there aren't many of such (really just the AK47 / AKM in full calibre, and that's a short intermediate cartridge) as it's hard to control, most are about .23 calibre rather than .303. But how small can it go and still be a rifle, rather than a sub-machine gun?
- The Avtomat has the problem that it's using a pretty useless cartridge, giving it the performance of a machine pistol. Nor can it use anything more powerful, owing to the overheating problem. Mostly though, it's just the limited numbers made - 100× as many Sturmgewehr than Avtomat.
- I would disagree Thomas' point that the Avtomat cartridge is too large, as the 6.5 Arisaka cartridge is so low powered, even though it's a large case. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's the case and the weight that is the main difference between a rifle cartridge and an intermediate cartridge, not the power. A smaller and lighter case means that the soldier can carry more rounds (for the same weight), which he'll need if he is to have any practical use for an automatic weapon... Thomas.W talk 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Fedorov Avtomat doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle since it was chambered for the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka "full power" rifle cartridge, and not an intermediate cartridge. Thomas.W talk 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've recently read about the Fedorov Avtomat. Isn't that technically the first assault rifle? I noticed it being mentioned above, but I don't get what the conclusion is. Is it or is it not, and why? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Too Much BS on this article!
First, the U.S. Army/DoD published the first technical definition of the phrase "Assault Rifle" as far as I can find, it is the only definition that has been placed into LAW in any country, let alone three, which it has; America, and by definition NATO, Japan and England. By this legal definition, the Arisaka 6,5mm chambered Federov, was not an AR because of it's Caliber/cartridge case size and power and the .30 Caliber M-2 Carbine was an AR by every meaning of the many other definitions. See ammo chart below to see that the .30 caliber Carbine cartridge was easily "Effective" depending on the definition of that word to well over 500 yards depending on energy to kill, or wound, or to well over 300 Meters by trajectory. Then there is the part of the Army Definition, as opposed to the one found in Comic books and other secondary sources about "effective automatic fire", not just effective fire, more on this later. If the fire must be effective automatic fire, then Neither the StG-44, or the AK-47 are effective assault rifles as neither one of them can hit much of anything at 300 yards, or meters as you like. But some folks think that just scarring the hell out of them with suppressive fire is ok, then they both count as ARs. But then so do all the full power battle rifles with select fire switches. But the .30 Caliber Carbine can by virtue of it's anemic cartridge be very controllable in a superior way to any of the above rifles such to get many more HITS, not just scarring the hell out them! The StG-44 was the first AR to be put in the field by any Army! That is not open to dispute, but it was and still is a piece of crapola! Look up it's many defects as documented by those who know it for a fact! On the other hand, the American M-1/2 Carbine was and still is one of the sweetest rifles around! Which any knowledgeable shooter would rather have than the StG-44 if his life depended on it! ( Rather than being allowed to take a much more formidable rifle from the M-16 family of Assault Rifles!)
Ballistics Charts Back Cartridge Information Index Number Cartridge Type Weight (grs.) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient R30CAR Remington® Express® 110 Soft Point 6 1/2 0.166 L30CR1 UMC® 110 Metal Case 6 1/2 0.166
Velocity (ft/sec) Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 1990 1567 1236 1035 923 842 UMC® 110 1990 1567 1236 1035 923 842
Energy (ft-lbs) Cartridge_Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 967 600 373 262 208 173 UMC® 110 967 600 373 262 208 173
Short-Range Trajectory Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300 Remington® Express® 110 0.6 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 UMC® 110 0.6 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6
Long-Range Trajectory Cartridge Type Bullet 100 150 200 250 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 -116.6 -225.5 UMC® 110 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 -116.6 -225.5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.153.99 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Assault rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130102110222/http://www.saf.org:80/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm to http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
fully automatic vs selective fire
I noticed an incorrect bit stating that assault rifles are always fully automatic capable. The m16 and m4 have instead used 3 round burst instead of automatic. A better term would be selective fire, which is what is linked to anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.122.184.152 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- The intro sentence was originally written as...
- "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."
- The "fully automatic" term was added later. Therefore, I do not have a problem with removing the term. As I also find it somewhat redundant and technically incorrect (as stated above).--RAF910 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Technical definition versus English language definition
Language evolves over time. All the sources saying an assault rifle has to be select fire are older than the people citing them. Meanwhile modern, current, mainstream, sources do not include the requirement for automatic in their definition - such as Meriam webster "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.", and dictionary.com includes a secondary definition "a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire." President Obama used this definition in his recent address.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, in the English language, the term 'assault rifle' has expanded to include the 'technically incorrect' of civilian semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. This usage of the term warrants mention in the first paragraph, if only to explain the technical inaccuracy of its usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's right. The NRA doesn't have a monopoly on defining firearms-related terms. One of the sources used is the Encyclopedia Britannica, says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition." So even the article's own sources contradict the narrow definition that some editors insist upon. Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the 11th commandment written by... was it moses on god's command wasn't "The definition of an assault rifle is bla bla bla". So, ever since that enormous oversight (who is this god person anyway?) I don't really know where an authoritative definition of "assault rifle" would come from. Take, for instance, the huge argument about which was the first "assault rifle". With some rifles having burst but not full auto some people just say select fire, but the semi auto only M27 seems to prove that even that is not a hard requirement which isn't a particularly shocking revelation. In the end, different experts probably have different definitions. It would be deceptive to say or imply that there is any one set in stone definition or that what does and does not fall into the assault rifle category, or that it is not subject to debate. Some editors might try to use original research on this page to argue that one definition is the one true definition or another definition is the one true definition or that there exists one true definition. I haven't looked into it, but presumably all that can be said is that the first "assault rifle" is subject to debate. Could it have been, for instance, the m1 carbine? The Vollmer M35? Where is the exact line between smg and aw ammunition? etc.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)




