I’m not looking for any rants from either side of the spectrum. I simply want to know your definition on what characteristics define a rifle as an assault weapon.
Don’t really have one. But if I where pressed, I would say it was a semi-automatic version of an Assault Rifle.
Since the OP is asking for personal definitions, this is better suited to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I asked pretty much the same question five months ago in this thread.
Capable of full-auto fire.
Chambers a rifle cartridge.Typically a reduced power .30(such as the AK-47) or a small caliber .22(M-16 or AK-74)
ETA: box magazine, not belt-fed.
Since “assault weapon” has no sensible literal meaning, I think the only one that matters in context is the definition from the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (or “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act”, a subtitle of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994”).
This subtitle has an extensive definition of specific features a firearm must possess in order to be called an “assault weapon” and subject to the posession, transfer, or manufacture ban. These are:
[QUOTE=Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’]
(30) The term semiautomatic assault weapon’ means–
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- (i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; (vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and (v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- (i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and (v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- (i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
[/QUOTE]
This definition is a pretty good starting point for discussing what we’re talking about when we’re talking about, for instance, re-instating the 1994 ban.
Semi- or full-automatic, clip-, drum-, or belt-fed.
A gun that scares liberals.
Regards,
Shodan
The Gun Glossary: Definitions of firearm lingo and types of weapons. - Slate Magazine says “There is little agreement on what constitutes an assault weapon, even among firearm enthusiasts.”
The term began when there were only bolt action rifles (and a number of single-shot and lever-action rifles around.)
Quite simply, a shoulder weapon suited for the military definition of ‘assault’ which is basically a battle rifle that can bridge the gap between a machine pistol (firing a pistol cartridge) and a light machine gun (firing a standard battle rifle cartridge or stronger.) The Wiki mentions the difference between an AR and an assault weapon. The latter was a definition by the US federal Government in 1997 covering a wider range of firearms.
So many of the definitions are subjective. For example, and other than outward appearances (most proninently the pistol grip), an AR-15 and the ubiquitous Ruger Mini-14 are vitually identical. Both are semi-automatic, chambered for the .223 round and will expend rounds at vituall the same rate. Further, their dimensions are similar and magazines of various capacities are available for both.
All this said, I don’t see an AR-15 any more or less lethal than a Mini-14. Is there disagreement on this? If so, why?
Assault rifle has a specific meaning which some are giving.
Assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle that looks superficially like an assault rifle but does not have the same capabilities.
Some have pistol grips and some don’t - I keep seeing gotcha threads/posts with links to or pics of various weapons - and oh - the catch is “they are all the same weapon”.
BULLSHIT.
Just cause they some of the same internal parts doesn’t make them the same weapon.
The pistol grip - according to those that don’t like them - allows for hip/spray firing. I’ve seen posts that point out - well pistols have pistol grips - and they went made for being fired from the hip - or even posts that suggest that pistol grips are worse for hp fire (I see the logic in the first, not sure I buy the second).
Point is - there are legitimate differences between some of these distinctions. They aren’t just “scary looking”. I am not sure I understand the rationale behind all of these. What is the rationale behind the grande launcher? Are they actually worried about people attaching grenade launchers (which I am guessing are illegal)?
But stuff like pistol grips I can see the point. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with it, but they are not the same weapon.
Despite what the gun people think - most of the anti-gun people ARE really trying to make a difference. There was a rationale behind all these things - just curious as to what they are for some things. Is the flash suppressor so that the police can see a potential shooter easier?
The primary reason for a pistol grip is because a modern infantry rifle has a straight stock and puts the firing hand/wrist at a very awkward angle with a conventional stock. A BAR(full-auto) has a conventional stock and is fired from the hip. Far too heavy and powerful to fire from the shoulder.
In the case of all the gotcha photos I’ve seen at this board, we are not talking about “some of the same internal parts.” It is the exact same gun, pulled from one stock (a “friendly” looking wooden one) and dropped into another stock that is “mean” looking due to being synthetic, folding, and/or having a pistol grip. The gun will function exactly the same way in any of those stocks.
What is mystical about a pistol grip? The idea of pistol grips on rifles is nothing new. Look at the 1903 Springfield stocks on this page. Compare the type C stock to the others. See how it is curved and they are straight? It is, and was at the time, called a full pistol grip. The military moved to pistol grip stocks because they offer improved ergonomics in aiming the rifle and handling recoil. The sticky-downy pistol grips on rifles like the AR-15 are just a more evolved form of the same thing and serve the same purpose. They have fuck-all to do with firing from the hip and they have always had fuck-all to do with it.
Flash suppressors primarily keep a shooter from being blinded by the muzzle flash from his own weapon under low light conditions. Secondarily, they reduce flash signature to observers. Low flash ammo helps a lot with both.
The “grenade launcher” is actually the flash suppressor. It is sized to allow a rifle grenade to slip over it. A blank cartridge is fired to launch the grenade towards the enemy. Some more recently designed grenades can be launched with a regular ball cartridge. Rifle grenades are kind of passe in most 1st world militaries. They’ve been replaced by dedicated grenade launchers which are, themselves, on the way to being replaced by smart grenade launchers. In any case, grenade spigots have never to the best of my knowledge been a factor in crime. I did know a guy who had some inert practice grenades that he’d amuse himself by launching from his AR-15 when he could find the proper blank cartridges.
I think that gnoitall’s list at the begining has the best list of weapons, they are used by military and first responders like swat. I want to add any large capacity clip as a assault definition too.
But the pistol grip shown in the example “C” you linked to isn’t really what people are talking about when they mean pistol grip - is it? They are about guns with - well grips that look like pistols? I realize you think of these as all the same gun. However - if the grip of the gun offers any benefit (and I’m not saying it does) - then they aren’t functionally the same.
First example Has two grips while third has one. Clearly these don’t function the same. If one actually was to allow someone to shoot from the hip better - I can the rationale for banning one over the other. Of course, I’m not really sure what prevents someone from shooting up a place by accurately firing a weapon, but I think the logic from the gun control perspective is:
There is no sportsman reason to shoot from the hip
This gun has features that allows it to be done so
Therefore there is no reason to have that gun
If there truly is no difference for a pistol grip - then the emphasis should be on arguing that - not for posts that show the “same gun” when I can clearly see with my eyes they are not the same gun. I realize that to a gun expert - they may be the same, but they are not the same to a non gun expert - as we are looking at the entire gun - stock and all.
So - and as you can tell I am not a gun expert - does a flash suppressor always mean grenade launcher and vice versa?
The forward pistol grip as seen in example A serves the same purpose as the rear pistol grip does: it is an ergonomic aid for steadying the rifle and handling recoil. Not a new idea, either. Look at these Tommy guns that were designed in the 1920’s.
WRT firing from the hip: it’s a great way to turn ammunition into noise and not hit much of anything. IMO, it exists because of movies. Directors didn’t want their star’s face blocked from view by a weapon. Hip shooting allows us to see his face, emoting like the dickens, while he shoots. Movies have given the general public all sorts of dreadfully wrong ideas about guns and shooting.
Flash suppressors aren’t always grenade launchers, no. Here’s one that is. Here’s one that isn’t. The ones that are come in a standard diameter (the size of which escapes me) and are cylindrical. They fit a standard sized hole in the back of the grenade.
It’s pointless to regulate “assault rifles” unless you are also going to regulate the parts that go into a gun. For example, at present, I believe that the only part the ATF actually regulates is the lower receiver. Aside from that, you can buy and sell any other part you please - barrels, stocks, grips, sites, etc.
That means, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you can take any basic rifle like an AR-15 based gun like the Ruger mini-14 and with aftermarket parts, turn it into anything you want thus side-stepping any ban than might be imposed.
This is the folly of an assault weapons ban. You can’t ban the weapons, you have to start getting into the nitty gritty of individual components.
My understanding has always been that an assualt rifle is
- A shoulder-controlled weapon optimized for individual use,
- Chambered to fire high velocity rifle ammunition,
- Equippable with a large capacity magazine,
- Capable of automatic OR burst AND selective fire, at the discretion of the rifleman.
“Semi-automatic assault rifle” means everything but 2. obviously.
This seems like a really clear and obvious definition to me. Pistol grips appear to be universal to assault rifles but if you had a 30-round full auto 5.56 weapon with no pistol grip I’d call that an assault rifle. A weird one.
Assault WEAPON has no clear definition I am aware of.