Weren’t both Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle AR-15 terminology replaced by “Modern Sporting Rifle”?
In English-language military usage, there’s a further distinction between “assault rifles” and “battle rifles,” but this distinction is a term of art and doesn’t generally appear in other languages.
The battle rifle term turned up, IIRC, in the late 1980s in articles by gun writers like Chuck Taylor. I remember seeing it used a lot on usenet in alt.rec.guns. I can’t recall, though, ever seeing it used as official military nomenclature, at least not by US forces. Do legitimate scholars use the term now? I confess, I don’t read much about guns anymore, and my perception of the term as a hobbyist/popular press term may be dated.
Well, the definition & context I was remembering was perhaps a bit muddled. Wikipedia agrees with you that it’s a recent term.
My exposure to the term “assault rifle” was in the Army in the early 1960’s when I was introduced to the M14 rifle. The big distinction between the WWII M1 and the M14 was the 20 round quick change magazine as opposed to the M1’s 8 round clip, the ability to select between semi-automatic (i.e., self loading) and full automatic and the M14’s integrated bi-pod. It was, however, just as heavy as the M1 and had a hell of a recoil which made it a bit difficult to fire off-hand in the fully automatic mode.
Later we got the M16 with its lighter cartridge, milder recoil and big magazine and the ability to zip through a full magazine faster than you could think about it.
On both weapons the salient feature was to put a lot of only approximately aimed lead in the air in a very short time. Both were trench brooms and both had the ability to make your target keep its head down.
But that big magazine and the ability to empty it quickly was the trade mark feature, not the bayonet lug, not the bipod, not the pistol grip, not the grenade launcher. To my mind neither the M14 or the M16and its successors are suitable for hunting (except fish in a barrel) or for fine marksmanship. Both were designed as short range man killers and were pretty good at it.
The M14 and its semi-auto version, the M1A are considered excellent long-range rifles.
"And then a funny thing happened on the way to the sandbox. With the escalation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was discovered that the M16 wasn’t all that adept at long-range shots and functioning during sandstorms. On the other hand, even with dirt and dust, the M14 excelled in hits out to 750 yards, especially with its magazine stoked with 175-grain M118 Long Range sniper cartridges."What the hell are infantry doing engaging the enemy at 750 yards? Pin them down with machine guns, mortars and snipers, close the distance and assault.
The term “battle rifle” is indeed a recent invention. It refers to a semi-automatic, military-pattern rifle. Characteristics usually include a pistol grip and removable magazine. They are available for sale in most states.
Some authors such as Kenneth Royce make a distinction between battle rifles and battle carbines. Examples of battle rifles include the M1A, AR-10, and the semi-auto version of the FAL. Examples of battle carbines include the AR-15 and the semi-auto version of the AK-74.
The further away your adversary can be engaged (regardless of how you do it), the better.
[quote=“ChickenLegs, post:26, topic:741287”]
The M14 and its semi-auto version, the M1A are considered excellent long-range rifles.
/QUOTE]
[quote=“ChickenLegs, post:26, topic:741287”]
The M14 and its semi-auto version, the M1A are considered excellent long-range rifles.
/QUOTE]
I would not question the M14 in semi-auto as a fine rifle. My problem was that as nearsighted as I am I could barely see the 600 meter pop-up, let alone hit it. I dare say I scared a few, though.
In full auto, however, the M14 was an area weapon which could pretty well saturate an area with lead and did a very good job of that. The problem was that it was fairly heavy and keeping it supplied with ammunition was a pain. In these regards the M16 was a more effective personal weapon for infantry despite its fairly limited range and somewhat cantankerous and delicate nature.
Won’t speak for everyone who has fired an M-14 in full auto, but without a bipod it’s a real handful. Very difficult to hold it on target.
I thought the M-14 on full auto was better as a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), fired from the hip or from a bipod like a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) than as a Main Battle Rifle (MBR) with a full auto upgrade. Yeah, the military likes to use acronyms for groups of multisyllabic words. And there’s jargon involved too; words the military commonly uses may have very specific meanings that don’t have much relation to the civilian usage of the same words.
The military definition of an Assault Rifle has been well defined upthread. The definition of a civilian assault “weapon” varies depending on legal definitions.
I suspect the first civilian “assault weapon” was the civilianized AR-15. They took the standard M-16 off the assembly line and replaced a few parts that allowed it to fire full auto and replaced them with similar parts that wouldn’t allow it to fire full auto. The same with the civilian AK-47s one sees for sale.
Then some gun control folks got into it. Generally, now, if it has a pistol grip, a bayonet lug, a “flash hider” (which is laughable anyway), and a removable box magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, any semi-auto rifle is an “assault weapon”. Or some combination of the 4 things I specified. In the gun control sense, a Ruger Mini-14 does NOT have a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or flash hider, so it’s not an “assault weapon”. Replace the stock with a black stock with a pistol grip and then it might become one.
(BTW the bayonet lug being branded a key part of making a weapon “assaultier” leaves me wondering who the heck was bayonetting anyone c. 1990…)
Maybe in the trade press and by the manufacturers’ marketing departments, as a counter to the “Assault Weapon” terminology. At the time of the ban one AR15 variant configured to clear the restrictions was branded “AR Sporter”.
Yet again, it’s not really any sort of standardized definition, it’s some writers’ preferred descriptor. Just as on some gun mags you read breathless headlines about “tactical defense” when you could as well say home protection.