Talk:Assault rifle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wound characteristics

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure Closing this down with Reject per RfC in Reliable Sources noticeboard. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Discussion (wound characteristics)

This was reverted with the reason Rv undiscussed addition of wound characteristics (which are totally irrelevant in a technical article about a specific type of weapon). Please note that content does not need to be discussed before being added. The source for this section is specifically about the wound characteristics of assault rifles, so I would consider this to be a relevant and constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 23:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the revert. This is an article about assault rifles in general not a specific make or model. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The source is about assault rifles in general. –dlthewave ☎ 00:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Read it again, it is talking about a AR-15 and M16 rifle bullet which fires a 5.56 or .223. Not all rifles are the same. The wounds would not be the same as well. Reb1981 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The most common assault rifle is not 5.56mm. Using a high velocity, small caliber round is not part of the meaning of "assault rifle" although it arguably is part of the evolution of them and should only be discussed in that context. Also information from Vietnam or derived from that (not sure if this applies) would not be accurate because the barrel twist and bullet weight are different and the wounding pattern (as I remember) was part of the reason the Swiss then the US & NATO went with a different design (perhaps for different reasons). If you want to add this information, put it in the right context (evolution of the assault rifle) and tell the whole story. Discussing 55gr slow twist in the same context as 62gr high twist is misleading and if the source doesn't make this distinction it's not an expert opinion on the topic IMO. Similarly the M4 will inflict different wounds than an AR-15 especially one with a M16 length barrel. The source has for example one obvious factual error "These weapons are meant to kill people" - the point of the switch to a heavier bullet with higher twist rate and part of the original intent of the M16 was to wound rather than kill because it inconveniences the enemy more. You can't lump all 5.56 rifles together and doing that means the source is bogus on the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The point of the switch from the lighter 55-grain M193 to the heavier 62-grain M855 was that it had more energy and had a steel core to penetrate Soviet body armor. It wasn't intended to make the round less lethal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That was part of it (maybe for the US) but as far as NATO I have seen this (creative commons licensed with sources) from a number of different sources:

"In 1977, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge.[10] Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56×45mm NATO was successful, but not the 55 gr M193 round used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that many[11] consider it to be inhumane.[12][13] Instead, the Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization. The SS109 used a heavier bullet with a steel core and had a lower muzzle velocity for better long-range performance, specifically to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a steel helmet at 600 meters. This requirement made the SS109 (M855) round less capable of fragmentation than the M193 and was considered more humane.[14]"

I was mistaken that it was the Swiss who had developed this round instead of the Belgians but I do believe NATO's choice as driven by the wounding being more humane. I used to have a book that covered this but I can't find it at the moment. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: The link you provided above is a version of the Wikipedia article on the 5.56x45mm NATO round from 2016, but if you look at the state of the page today, the bit about the M193 wounds "were so devastating" is no longer in the article, and the bit about the M855 being "more humane" has a citation needed tag (see the 2nd to last paragraph of the History section). If you're interested, you might want to pursue as to why the current article has changed. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The key point is this is a factual addition from a credible source on the wounds created by assault rifles. We can certainly qualify it to say certain types of assault rifles, but to remove the addition is ridiculous. If you want to re-title the article to limit the content to a subset of the subject, go ahead, but while this is called "Assault Rifles" then the wounds they create are highly relevant.Farcaster (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are going to add information for SS-109 vs. original and the fact that it was actually chosen to lessen the wounding, short barrel vs. long barrel, 7.62x39 vs. 5.56, you are focusing on a specific subtopic of assault rifles from a politically tilted attack piece against something that is not even really an assault rifle, the AR-15, and non-specific information on what could be wounds from rifles with entirely different characteristics (like the M4). The information needs to be placed in the context of the evolution of assault rifles as a whole. Specific information on one round from a source that is non-specific about whether they mean wounds from M4 or M16, etc. is off topic here. Needs to be balanced with other rounds and more technical information to be about assault rifles in general. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to balance it with additional information, but not to remove factual, cited information. Way out of line.Farcaster (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is UNDUE if it is not balanced, and off topic as I have described. Put it in the AR-15 article if you want. I dispute that the non-technical anecdotes of doctors are even reliable sources on this. They don't make important distinctions or have the requisite knowledge about assault rifles. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wound characteristics belong in articles about specific calibers, if even there, since the effect in the target depends on bullet diameter, bullet length (a longer bullet causes a larger wound channel if it tumbles than a shorter bullet does), type of bullet and bullet velocity when entering the target, not on which type of weapon it was fired through. Assault rifles also come in multiple calibers (with 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm at one end of the scale and 5.56x45mm and 5.45x39mm at the other end) with widely varying effect in the target. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed that the editor is mistaken on his view of relevance. 72bikers (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Thomas.W you are correct. I only suggested the AR-15 article because the NY Times story was purportedly about them, and because I wanted to make Farcaster someone else's problem - I figured it would quickly be reverted there as well because it is a politically charged article. The individual cartridge articles are where this belongs if anywhere. One thing I will note is that it does matter whether it's an M4 or M16 but only for the reasons you spelled out. The 5.56x45 article already has this discussion actually, with better sources than the New York Times. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• delete I'm not against an accurate and sourced section on wound ballistics. This was neither. Nor would I expect a populat newspaper to ever be an adequate source for this.

It seems to be comparing handgun vs. rifle mvs, except that this is a question for another article, and not even the one on assault weapons.

It then sees the AR-15 / M-16 as the only assault rifle/weapon, which is a common fallacy. It also then makes claims about ballistics which are only adequately true for the Stoner AR-15 concept of a reduced calibre with a moderate assault rifle cartidge, and the resultant ballistics and wound characteristics.

If this was relevant to all (or near) "assault rifles" in general, then it would be relevant. It isn't.

If this is true for a large proportion of such assault rifles (it is), then it could belong here, if it were better written and better sourced. As it is, it's just not good enough. This is only true for a narrow definition of assault rifles, and that needs to be made very clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey (wound characteristics)

• OPPOSE ADDITION...First...it's an opinion piece, sensationally written by one writer, interviewing a hand full doctors. Second...not all Assault Rifles are 5.56mm. It wasn't even the first Assault-Rifle caliber. Assault Rifles were around for about 15 years before the 5.56mm (then called .223) was developed. Third...not all 5.56mm weapons are Assault rifles. The military uses a wide range of 5.56mm weapons, including Assault Rifles, Squad Automatic Weapons, Belt-Fed Light-Machineguns, etc. Fourth...not even all M16s type rifles fire 5.56mm ammo, some fire 6.8mm ammo. Because, it was felt that the 5.56mm ammo was not lethal enough. Fifth...not all AR-15s fire 5.56mm ammo. In fact, they fire so many different types of ammo that they cannot be listed here and have entire article devoted to them. Sixth...the 5.56mm cartridge is not exclusively used by AR-15s. It's used by a wide range of weapons, everything from semi-auto rifles, to bolt-action rifles, to pump-action rifles, to lever-action rifles, to single-shot rifles, to combo-guns, to pistols, and even bang-sticks.--RAF910 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm a bit confused by the edit summary "... ...wound characteristics (which are totally irrelevant in a technical article about a specific type of weapon)... - how are wound characteristics "irrelevant" to the function of the rifle? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't defend that edit summary for him, but the wound characteristics are about the cartridge, which is used in a number of different types of weapons other than assault rifle (including non-military weapons like hunting rifles). This topic is already discussed in the 5.56x45 NATO article. The NYT article is not a technical discussion and is not about assault rifles in a meaningful way, it only purports to be about the AR-15 (with poor evidence for that, reflecting inadequate knowledge of the topic). —DIYeditor (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"the wound characteristics are about the cartridge" - so they have nothing to do with the weapon itself? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the length of the barrel, the barrel twist, and whether it is semi-automatic, automatic, or bolt action make a difference. A bolt-action hunting rifle with .223 would actually inflict larger wounds AFAIK. My main objections to the NYT article are that it doesn't reflect adequate technical knowledge to be a RS on this topic, and including it here without balancing information about all different types of cartridges and weapons is UNDUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The wounding effects of the 5.56mm is totally dependent on the velocity of the bullet when it hits the target. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of weapon it's fired from. A 55gr bullet fired from a 26" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3430fps, from a 20" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3300fps, from a 16" barrel it has a muzzle velocity about 3180fps, from a 10" it barrel has a muzzle velocity about 2760fps. The range to the target also effects the velocity at impact. Obviously, the closer you are to the target the higher the velocity. A 55gr bullet fired from a 20" barrel has a muzzle velocity of about 3300fps, at 100 yards the velocity is about 2800fps, at 300 yard it's about 1900fps, at 500 yards it's about 1300fps.--RAF910 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the type/model of weapon affects the velocity (and whether the bullet is spinning properly on impact). An M4 has a different wound pattern than an M16. So it does have to do with the weapon used. An AR-15 just happens to have no particular type of barrel or cartridge so in that case it is not accurate to characterize the wounds from it based on a narrow set of circumstances. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

M16s have 20" barrels with a muzzle velocity of about 3150fps for 62gr ammo, M4s have 14.5" barrels with muzzle velocity of about 2970fps for 62gr ammo. The M4s have shorter barrels, therefore lower muzzle velocities. That's the only difference.--RAF910 (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, and that is a difference between those two models of firearm. So the model does matter. Not worth arguing over really. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: I can "defend" myself. They're totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• OPPOSE ADDITION per what I wrote in the section above. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose without DUE balance discussing other cartridges, and because this does not appear to be a reliable, technical secondary source on this topic, rather a politically motivated attack piece with anecdotes. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Do the comments apply for all or even most ammunition types? Are these generalized statements applicable to 7.62x39mm? I suspect it's the most common assault rifle round in the world. Springee (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your quite correct, the most common assault rifle in the world is the AK-47, with over 100 million rifles having been made. The 7.62x39mm round has much better penetration than the 5.56mm round. However, does not fragment on impact, even at point blank range or when striking bone. It just punches a neat hole in the target, maybe yawing (tumbling) once or twice before it exit out the other side.--RAF910 (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not entirely relevant to this discussion, but while we are talking about it. The AK and its 7.62 round is credited as being the most used firearm in mass killings around the world. -72bikers (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For reasons stated above.72bikers (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion as discussed elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my arguments on RSN, the source lacks the specificity to be included in this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose per my previous comments in discussion and elsewhere. Reb1981 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not particularly relevant to an article about assault rifles in general, because: A. Most assault rifles are not M-16s and B. The injury types discussed are not unique to assault rifles (they are typical of tumbling or hollow-point wound profiles inflicted by bolt-action and battle rifles, too, for example). VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support/Include, as answered at RSN. Clearly the NYT is a reliable source. Further, the article is about assault rifles and assault weapons as defined by Wikipedia, with both military (M-16) and civilian (AR-15) examples provided in the article. In terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." So we should proceed on the side of inclusion and improvement. The approach here should be to include the text and provide additional information from scientific studies as provided at the RfC. If there are concerns about undue weight, we can address those with sources that distinguish the impact of different cartridges or other rifles.Farcaster (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC Notice

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

See archive. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Assault is not an actual term and should recognized a hyperbole.

192.104.67.221 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)All military rifles are simply rifles. In the civilian world, they do not have the 'fully' automatic setting and 'machine guns' are illegal to purchase. Civilian models, while being able to purchase in 'mil-spec' does not mean they are fully military grade. The upper receiver (where the rounds chamber), and telescoping butt stock are the main mil-speck areas. The standard received allows for a round to load from the right of a magazine. Mil-spec allows lefts and right which saved on wear and tare. They also fire .22 rounds on up. Most rifles not called Assault fire but hunting rifles fire same caliber and rate of fire. They just do not look scary. And point of fact, more deaths occur every year with hand guns, of which .22 is the most common.192.104.67.221 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Robert McDaniel

And all this is relevant to this article how?Sus scrofa (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently they want the article's title changed. They are conflating the genuine military term "assault rifle" with the political term "assault weapon", which are often used interchangeably in American politics and media. It's a common issue on this article. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Dubious citation

The claim that the US Army has a definition of "Assault Rifle" is based on a 1970 intelligence piece. That seems dubious at best. Current US military doctrine is largely available to the public online. I would argue that if we can't find a current definition in something like the Field Manuals (FMs) or in the current Joint Publication "DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms," then the U.S. reference should be removed. This article is fine without it. 64.132.169.226 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The term is not found in FM 3-22.9 "Rifle Marksmanship," the FM devoted to M16s and M4s, although that FM seems to be discontinued. The closest it comes is referring to "assault fire" as a type of attack that may be needed depending on a situation. The term is also not found in JP1 or the DoD Dictionary. I also checked the TM on M16A2 and M4A1, and the word "assault" does not appear. I can check other publications if you have a specific one you'd like me to search. I tend to agree that we should not cite a 50 year old memo. Either find a new citation or remove the sentence.Canute (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Forum

Not related to improving the article, hatting per WP:NOTFORUM Lmatt (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles such as this one are highly charged emotionally, and politically and are monitored by persons or agents with a financial or political agenda. If not then they are remiss in their obligations. Some suggested edits require, nay demand, justification and a reason, thus they tend to appear like a forum or soap box. Those that would seek to shut down such debate or flow of information, will use any tool at their disposal including WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX, very effective tools at censorship. Reverting this post proves my point.Oldperson (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC) One of the reasons there are policies like WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX is because Wikipedia doesn't really care about the "obligations" of agents with a financial or political agenda, outside whatever coverage these agents or their obligations may be receiving in secondary reliable sources. An article talk page is not a place for a general debate or flow of information to take place about the subject of an article or about things associated with it; it's intended to be a place for discussing ways to improve the article or how relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be applied to the article. Removing or collapsing "inappropriate" posts is not necessarily censorship; it's trying to ensure that article talk pages are in accordance with things such as WP:TPG#Off-topic posts or WP:TPG#Removing harmful posts or other relevant policies and guidelines. There are alternatives to Wikipedia where people can post whatever they want and debate about whatever they want. If you think certain policies or guidelines should be changed or tweaked, then the place to have that discussion is on the relevant policy or guideline's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Article purpose

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)

@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)

"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)

@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)

WP:NOTFORUM —DIYeditor (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lmatt: Actually the AR-15, like its big brother the M16/GAU-5A are Weapons of War and that is how they should be referred to, but for the time being, the civilian who does not know better, sees the weapon and to him or her it is an assault weapon. Assault weapons were designed as Weapons of War to kill people, and so is the AR-15., The AR-15 shares the same function as an M-16 (designed to kill people). It is not a sporting rifle. In fact hunting is not a sport. A sport has rules and both sides know what the rules are and are equally equipped or capable. I carried the M-16 from 1967 until they came out with the carbine version (GAU-5A, which I could strap below my reserve chute. Neither weapon or anything similar should be in the hands of the public, but that is cross purposes to the financiers of the NRA,the weapons manufacturers and the right wing morons who believe they can stand up to tanks, Apaches and a fully armed force, which is already as right wing as they are. 26 years in special ops, I know of what I speakOldperson (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting, but not relevant. People don't carry ungulates in shoulder slings.Oldperson (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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)

Why is that not relevant? It basically says that the basis of your argument (that a term that the general public doesn't already know should not be used) does not exist and would be unworkable in Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Norinco type 56.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes

Just a quick note on that last pending changes edit I accepted. Per that page: "Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed above. " (such as vandalism) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Sturm does mean both a strong wind and "assault" (as well as a few other meanings), see the Duden entry. In this case "assault" is better than "storm" since it can't be mistaken to mean "strong wind". Sjö (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

We have Sturmgewehr to translate, not Sturm Gewehr. Even then Sturm in military context translates to assault (eine Position stürmen = assault a position)--Denniss (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a confusion between a literal translation and a translation based on function/purpose . Sturm can be translated into storm (https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/stormtrooper). So one could say storm riffle. But the reason why people used storm to begin with was because weather storms are sudden and they wanted to attribute to the name an analogy. And the infantry units Sturmtruppen purpose was to be more flexible and fast, like a storm, but for the purpose of producing fast assaults on the enemy. The same goes with the weapon that supports such infantry units. So in terms of function one can translate into assault riffle: a riffle that has the capacity to support fast assaults that resemble the suddenness of weather storms. I propose the text is clarified and writes instead "It literally translates into storm riffle, which then leads to the common translation as an assault riffle per analogy with the suddenness and speed of implied by the word storm" or something to this effect.

do not cut foreign words in parts, translate these parts and expect the result to be a proper translation. Plus Sturm in this context is not related to the weather phenomen at all. It's related to the german verb "stürmen" which is translated as "to assault". And I wrote this already 8 months ago just above your nonsense translation attempt. --Denniss (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

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)

• OPPOSE CHANGE - The definition of an "Assault Rifle" is a rifle with selective fire (switch between automatic fire and semi-automatic fire). The AR-15 only has one fire, which is semi-automatic. Here is a source: https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle Reb1981 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)"

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Expert sources trump vague dictionary definitions. Consensus trumps your quest. WP:DROPTHESTICK Springee (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Feedback from an outsider looking in: I came here specifically to learn about the definition of "Assault Rifle," and I don't think you've settled it. You have references, but I find it hard to believe they all use the exact same definition. For the sake of objectivity, it would be helpful to see some contrasting descriptions, so I can get a better understanding of what the term could mean in different contexts. Also, a user in this discussion says "the military has a definition," but there are multiple militaries around the world, and I don't see any official military publications cited in the article. (A book written by a military member is not the same as an official military publication, which is where an actual military definition would be.) I have no idea where you would find this definition, but it would be great if this article could state something like "According to the British Army, an assault rifle is..." and then cite official UK Army doctrine. (BTW, https://www.army.mod.uk does not list an "assault rifle," but it does list an "assault boat," which would be a fun addition to the assault weapon page.) I'm not making any edits, just giving you some reader perspective. Canute (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia falsely states that the definition of " Assault rifle" is a rifle that uses a detachable magazine and an intermediate cartridge. this is easily debunked when you do some simple research and find that there are many rifles that fit that definition that are not classified as " Assault rifles" including many bolt action hunting rifles . The real (actual) distinction between so called " assault rifles",and other rifles, as well as the very reason the STG44 was dubbed "assault rifle" was because of it's select fire/ full auto capability, a fact that is universally agreed on by firearms experts around the world. This has little or nothing to do with detachable magazines, or the cartridge used and everything to do with how the firearm functions. Also the AR-15 is not a " select fire" rifle, and is not capable of burst fire, or fully automatic fire, and is therefore not an "assault rifle". The United States Department of Defense has even classified the AR-15 as a civilian rifle for the reasons mentioned above. 2600:1007:B123:83BD:C633:BC1D:C417:1BFB (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Huh? The first sentence clearly states "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle...". BilCat (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And the Armalite AR-15 is the select-fire military version of the AR-15 and an assault rifle. It is different from the civilian version Colt AR-15 which is semi-automatic only. The article says "Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities" (my bold). Sjö (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Back and forth on "selective fire" vs. "fully automatic"

Selective fire means capable of fully automatic. So technically "selective fire" is the best. But "fully automatic-capable" of "capable of fully automatic fir" would probably communicate that better for most readers. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Both the Britannica and U.S. Army reference (and probably a bunch of others if you really want to go through them) explain that it must be capable of selective fire. If you want to explain what selective fire actually means in the lede, then that's one thing, but replacing selective fire with automatic fire is not staying true to what the actual sources say. Loafiewa (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that the IP claims that calling it selective-fire goes against the "Oxford definition", when in actuality, Oxford also defines an assault rifle as being select-fire.[3] Loafiewa (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

We bluelink select fire in the lead sentence. No need to gum up the intro with unnecessary explanation; the lead should be tightly written. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that bluelink (wikilinking) is not considered a substitute for parenthetic explanations per MOS:JARGON. Terms should be understandable for a general reader without having to follow a bluelink - especially in a lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not jargon though, and is of course understandable to a general reader. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"selective fire" would mean nothing to an average reader - could mean it can shoot different objects? - could mean it shoots different types of ammunition? It is jargon, you would have to be in the gun world to actually know what it means. Drilling down through all the articles linked gives a definition of: "An assault rifle is a weapon that automatically reloads magazine-fed rounds and is capable of single, burst, or continuous fire." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You would have to switch "weapon" to "rifle" and mention the intermediate cartridge, or the definition would cover many weapons that are not assault rifles. Sjö (talk)

Something like:

"An assault rifle is a rifle that automatically reloads magazine-fed, intermediate cartridges and is capable of single, burst, or continuous fire"

? In general, I agree with those above that are saying that some explication of "select fire" would be an improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the "automatically reloads" phrasing addresses any issue raised here and it's certainly not an improvement. Status quo is superior. VQuakr (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How about "An assault rifle is a rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine and is capable of single, burst, or continuous fire."? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "automatically reloads" is part of the definition of every mode of selective fire - it was there because that is the definition that was being linked (for better or worse). It can be dropped out and Firefangledfeathers version sounds good. Should be noted "military rifle" is also part of the basic definition (in citation #1). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Are automatic weapons "functionally illegal in the U.S. for civilian use"?

@VQuakr: Since automatic weapons made before 1986 are still legally available to anyone who can afford them, I don't think this is an accurate statement. Smyth (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Functionally illegal, since full auto is pre-1986 only and from a finite supply the cheapest are running like $20k. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Also need an extraordinary permit that >99.9% don't have. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Annoyingly expensive" is not the same thing as "functionally illegal". Is a $20k car "functionally illegal"?

As for the permit issue, "annoyingly bureaucratic" isn't the same thing as "functionally illegal" either. The phrase would be accurate if it's impossible in practice to get a permit, like a concealed carry permit in Los Angeles. But I don't believe that's the case for an NFA permit. If you disagree, you can add a citation to the article (WP:BURDEN). But I think this whole issue is irrelevant to the article anyway, and it would be clearer if the text was just removed. Smyth (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that it's very important but perhaps the situation it could be detailed instead of trying to describe it in two words.North8000 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

How about "very heavily restricted"? And that's just federal law, they're illegal to possess in some states. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, how about this: Like all automatic firearms, assault rifles are heavily restricted in the U.S. However, the term is often conflated with "assault weapon", a legal category with a varying definition which includes many semi-automatic weapons. Smyth (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I like the "often conflated with" clarity part because that is an area of mass confusion, some of it deliberately promulgated. On the exact question at hand, I think that even better would be to provide the specifics. I don't know them well enough to draft something, but something on the order of. "requirements and scarcity make legal civilian ownership of assault rifles extremely difficult, expensive and rare in the US. Ownership is limited to pre-1986 versions. The resultant scarcity causes even the most economical types to cost upwards of $20,000. Ownership also requires having a rare XYX permit which requires $xxxx, xxxx and xxxx." North8000 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I would remove that sentence or change it to point to the assault weapons topic later in the article ("For the differences between AW and AR see [section name]"). The vague term "functionally illegal" is poor and should be removed. Springee (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for the article to have two separate discussions of the assault weapon / assault rifle distinction, so I've merged them into one. This also touches on the possible confusion over the term "machine gun", which includes all automatic weapons under the US legal definition, but not under other definitions including the one in the Wikipedia article of the same name.

The "assault rifle" article has a worldwide scope, so I don't think it's the right place to go into detail about exactly how difficult it is to own one in the US. It's enough to give a one-sentence summary and a link to the articles on the relevant laws, which cover all the above details about licensing, cost, and more. Smyth (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Smyth: Combining the two sets of text is a good idea. But now it might be harder for readers to notice that paragraph. I'm thinking that many American readers will be coming here looking for information about assault weapons, not realizing that those are different from assault rifles, and not see the article hatnote. So, I'm going to put back the section header, "Distinction from assault weapons", to make that paragraph easier to notice. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't need a dedicated section header for a single short paragraph saying what the subject isn't, especially since it's redundant with the hatnote. @Mudwater and North8000: thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

What's important is the explanatory material in this area which perhaps the one most people come to this page to learn. Then it's just a matter of an appropriate sub-heading for the material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt that's the case. And we already have a filter for people who reached the wrong page with our usual approach, which is a hatnote. VQuakr (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of confusion between assault rifles and assault weapons. This article should make it very obvious that those are two different things. The section header is needed to help with that. If anything, the new, combined section could be expanded somewhat to explain the difference at greater length. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts regarding Hugo Schmeisser

I'd like to recommend an edit of the portion regarding the development of the AK-47.

The only listed source for the claim regarding Hugo Schmeisser's involvement with the development of the AK-47 is a very short and uncited article that makes an off hand mention about Schmeisser's possible involvement, while both the articles for Hugo Schmeisser himself, and the AK-47, have cited histories stating that his involvement was never explicit, and that he may very well have never worked on the design directly or at all. The wording of this section is also very strange, and reads as though to imply Mikhail Kalashnikov only worked on the later variants. The latter may just be a poorly executed edit, but the assertive claim that Hugo Schmeisser worked on the AK-47 seems to directly contradict his wiki and the wiki for the rifle itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technotuna42 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a bunch of weak circumstantial things to point at: the 7.92x33 vs the 7.62x39, the "ribbed" 30-round magazines and maybe that huge front sight. But then again, the Schmeisser's involvement could have happened somewhere after the 1947 design and the 1949 adoption of the AK-47.

Select fire weapons vs fully automatic weapons

Select fire usually has safe, semi-automatic or burst options...whereas the fully automatic is ..well, fully automatic.

Even though there is literally no such thing as an assault rifle--the "AR" simply stands for "Armalite Rifle" for the inventor of that specific weapon system. The term "assault rifle" is made up and is used by those who have no idea what they are speaking about.

Just like how the AK refers to Avtomát Kaláshnikova. An automatic weapon (with no selection option for any other firing mode up until the SK models to which they were given the select option for semi-auto, auto, or safety.

The first ever Armalite Rifle (M-16) didn't have a selector option for semi, or burst. It was automatic or it was on safe.

166.182.253.97 (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" is a valid term for the military rifle, and a term that has been in use for a long time. Assault rifle, the term for a type of military rifle is often conflated with assault rifle, a US legal term for some types of semiautomatic weapons.

Assault rifles generally have safe, semi-auto and full auto modes, but some have burst mode instead of full auto. One of these is the M-16 that was modified from the original safe/semi-auto/full auto modes. You are welcome to read the relevant articles to learn more about this topic. Sjö (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" hasn't been really a military term since the fall of Adolf Hitler (its inventor). As noted, American military uses either just "rifle" or "automatic rifle", Russian (Ukrainian etc) is "avtomat" (automatic gun), Polish "karabin / karabinek automatyczny" (automatic rifle / carbine), and so forth. It's a civilian term - used by American police (coloquially), politicians, journalists, video game makers, and such. The only exceptions are Austria and Switzerland where there have been post-WWII military weapons designated Sturmgewehr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.41.12 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And as for

"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."

Its just one random intel report from half century ago (1970). Beyond that and perhaps other oddities, the U.S. Army usually doesn't define assault rifles because the U.S. Army doesn't recognise assault rifles. You should find a plenty in manuals and other documents about rifles and automatic rifles though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.41.12 (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There are several sources that confirm it is very much in use as a military term. http://www.military-today.com/firearms/top_10_assault_rifles.htm https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf/our-equipment/firepower/modular-assault-rifle-system-light-mars-l/ https://english.defensie.nl/topics/materiel/arms https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/equipment-uniforms/equipment/small-arms/enhanced-f88 https://canadianarmytoday.com/whats-replacing-the-c7-assault-rifle/ https://www.fairchild.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001041802/ I guess that in everyday use you would refer to the service rifle as just a "rifle" or "service rifle" since it doesn't really matter to the soldier what weapons class it is, and because in the US anything with "assault + X" is likely to start a political discussion. Sjö (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

"Cemented trend" sentence in "5.56 NATO"

"The adoption of the 5.56mm NATO and the Russian 5.45×39mm cartridges cemented the worldwide trend toward small caliber, high-velocity cartridges", says m-14parts.com. Nevertheless, there was a over-a-decade long search for a bigger yet intermediate gun round, characterized by such ammo as Grendel and SPC. The same goes to intermediate-ish .277 Fury, used in XM7 rifle. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

False Naming; "Assault rifle"

There is no such thing as an “Assault Rifle”.

“AR” comes from Armalite, Inc; “Armalite Rifle”

Armalite/Fairchild/Colt built rifles for the military an designated them using the letters “AR-xx” representing an Armalite Rifle model xx.

“Assault rife” should be removed from Wikipedia.

VJS Vjsimone (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is full of citations from reliable published sources that disagree with the assertion that "There is no such thing as an 'Assault Rifle'." BilCat (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for cryin' out loud—it's a descriptive term, not a trademark. And, yeah, BilCat is right: there is such a thing as an "assault rifle". I see them all the time, too, especially in the hands of military personnel. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

if you hunt bubba your rifle bc that's the only kind a 'rifle' is like a larger cal. Than NATO 5.56mm did you know that it's a NATO approved 'rifle'. And your hunting which is just a 'rifle' is also more accurate and the rounds flatter longer shooting. Is your 'pearing' knife not just a 'knife' 2603:6010:2205:8D00:E4CB:50DC:3120:90F7 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey man, this is incomprehensible. 2601:449:4200:3840:F44D:2792:71E5:872D (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vjsimone: Perhaps what you meant is that the "AR" in "AR-15" does not stand for "assault rifle" and that an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. I'd agree with you there, but not with your main assertion. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would actually agree that there isn't really a thing that is an assault rifle, but the article is necessary because there seems to be a political motivation to label any rifle more modern than a musket as an "assault rifle." that being said, I think there needs be a segment in the article regarding the over labeling of assault rifles. Especially since in states like California there are attempts at legislation that would make the lever action Marlin I use for hunting an "assault rifle." the definition has become so political that it needs to be addressed 2601:246:5680:E670:14BD:C0A9:CC57:A9EE (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The political usage is already covered at Assault weapon. Both terms are often conflated with each other, but "assault rifle" is a legitimate military term that is over 75 years old. BilCat (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the "assault rifle" is supposed to refer to German Sturmgevehr where the "gevehr" part means "rifle"; and the "sturm" is translated as "assault".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Профессор кислых щей (talk • contribs)

• Well, the German Sturmgevehr translates as "rifle" (gevehr) to perform an "assault" (sturm). The current consensus is, AR-10/AR-15 platform was heavily influenced by the StG-44, while it was supposed to oppose 7.62x51 guns like G3 or M-14. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)