I would suggest “cute bunnies”, as in “This cute bunny is chambered for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge and comes with a 20-round magazine.”
The term as used by reporters, et al, prior to the 1980’s was not “made up by the anti-gun people” or the media "specifically to fool the public into thinking that a ‘semiautomatic rifle’ is an ‘assault rifle’. "
If anyone in this thread wants to say that the term as used in the anti-gun debates/legislation of the 1980’s was a deliberate, politically motivated design, I’ll agree with you.
But can you please not continue to say that the term was “made up” by politically motivated persons prior to the 1980’s? I know you didn’t include that as a time frame, but that’s what you said/are saying.
Johnny My comments aren’t entirely directed to you. Just more convenient to post in response to your last post.
samclem: No offense taken. But this thread is about the origin of the term. mangeorge found one link in the Chicago Tribune from 1985. You found the term in use in the early-1970s.
But… The context of those earlier cites clearly indicate that the “assault weapons” being talked about are “assault rifles”, since the references are to war zones. In my personal recollection, I don’t remember the firearms we’re talking about here being refered to as “assault weapons” until the mid-1980s.
Is my post below a fair statement, then?
“Non-military, semi-automatic rifles, which appear to the uninformed to mimic military automatic rifles from the 1940’s-1970’s, were deemed “assault weapons” by antigun proponents in the 1980’s in order to further the banning of such weapons.” If so, I would agree with you.
But to answer the OP, the term was not “invented” in the 1980’s by anti-gun forces.
I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth. Just trying to make it “perfectly clear.”
Fair enough.
If you had a table of normal hunting rifles and revolvers, what would you call those guns? Rifles and revolvers, probably. But when there’s a table of scary looking guns, which are not functionally different from other types of guns, you need a seperate name for them?
Well, that’s kinda my point, Johnny. Most of the items on the table probably are civilian firearms made to look like a military firearm. That’s part of their charm. Some of us still like tp play army. Nothing wrong with that. And a few of those items just might be Real Military Weapons. So what? Calling them all “assault weapons” is, for most of us, a matter of convenience. Believe me, it’s really not important what anybody calls them. I’m here to tell you that very few are “scared” by the looks of them, or by the term “assault weapon”. Honest.
If the avid gun folks would just let it be, the term would simply fall into common use, like “pickup truck”.
Hell, under the right circumstances the proverbial “pointy stick” could be an assault weapon.
There you go with that “scary looking” stuff again. Nobody’s scared of your guns, SenorBeef.
Hunting rifles and revolvers I’d call “cute bunnies”, to gleefully plagiarize mks57. 
But the anti-gun crowd might call them “personal weapons” in an attempt to scare people.
The items on my table are rifles and revolvers, not made to look scary (well, they are, but in a cool way) but made to look militaryish.
BTW; I don’t need a seperate name, I just want one. Because I can.
Aren’t most assault rifles really carbines?
Ok, let me make this clear.
You want a distintion to refer to guns derived from military weapons.
These guns are not functionally different from common hunting rifles and such, the only difference is cosmetic.
Therefore, you want to make a distinction, and have a new term, based on the cosmetic appearance of the gun.
If this isn’t making a distinction for “looking scary”, then fine - but it’s a cosmetic difference.
“Carbine” is a term that has different meanings in different armies. In some armies, it means the shortened version of a full sized rifle - in others, it refers to a weapon given to troops who won’t use it as a primary weapon but require more than a pistol, and sometimes it can be used to describe basically a small, light rifle. You can consider assault rifles carbines, especially in the last sense, but it’s not a very meaningful statement unless the listener understands the context precisely.
It’s always been my understanding that a Main Battle Rifle (MBR) is a “full-size” assault rifle, and is usually chambered in 7.62 NATO. Examples include the M-14, FAL, and H&K 91. Civilian (semi-auto) versions include the M1A, FAL assault weapon, and AR-10 (which is an AR-15 on steriods). It can also be argued the M1 is also a MBR, though it was chambered in .30-06.
A carbine is a smaller, lighter & less powerful version of a MBR. Examples include the M-16 (.223) Kalashnikov rifles (usually 7.62 x 39), and the .30 Carbine.
You aren’t incorrect, and I was saying there were a lot of different definitions of carbine. The .30 carbine was called a carbine not necesarily because of the design but rather because the US army applied the term carbine to smaller weapons used to arm troops whose primary job wasn’t fighting with rifles but needed more than a pistol (officers, tank crews, etc.). Assault rifles are called carbines basically because they’re light weapons. A mauser 98k was a shorthened mauser 98 - the k stood for “karabiner” or carbine. None of the designations are incorrect, I was just clarifying the carbine was a very broad term.
I’m curious why anyone would argue that the M1 is not a main battle rifle even by the strictest definitions. Certanly not because of the .30 US caliber which is ballistically a twin for 7.62 NATO.
I spoke too quickly. .30 US uses a heavier bullet than 7.62 NATO.
Because it was chambered in .30-06 (which has an edge on power over the .308), the M1 certainly has the power of a MBR from a ballistics point of view. But I’ve always thought a MBR should have a removable magazine.
I wouldn’t agree with that definition. It would mean the British were the only ones who even had a main battle rifle in WWII since the SMLE had a detachable magazine while the '98 Mauser and M1 had clips. I don’t really count the BAR as it was never issued to the bulk of troops so it doesn’t meet the “main” part. I’d define it as the rifle that a country equips most of its troops with and nothing more. The M-16 wasn’t as powerful as an MBR when it came out but it eventually became the the MBR when 7.62NATO rifles were only used for special purposes/forces.
This isn’t correct. The mauser and M1 both had internal, non-detachable magazines that could be loaded faster (charged) by clips. The SMLE was the same. Even if it did have a detachable magazine, it was still a bolt action rifle, and therefore wouldn’t fit just about anyone’s definition of main battle rifle.
I’m not sure where you get your definition of MBR. I think it’s a pretty self defining term; the main rifle that troops use in battle. The specific type of rifle and features will change over time. In 1876 it would have been a single shot trapdoor .45-70 springfield and now it’s an M16 in 5.56mm.
Main Battle Rifle, like Assault Weapon, is strictly a civilian term, IME. I never once heard it used in the army. We simply had rifles. Nor have I run into it outside of internet discussion boards and popular gun periodicals. None of my reference books use either Main Battle Rifle or Assault Weapon.
The term MBR seems to have been coined in civilian circles as a way of differentiating between civilian-legal weapons. Those that fire full-power cartridges are MBR’s regardless of action type. Those (like the AR-15, SKS, WASR, HK-93, etc) that fire cartridges in the 5.56 NATO or 7.62 x 39mm class are called by a variety of names to include “assault weapon.”