What are the defining features of an "assault rifle"?

[carnivorousplant]

Of one my patrons at the Library had been an infantryman in Vietnam. He said that whenever a North Vietnamese fired full auto, they would yell, “Get the guy with the machine gun!” and concentrate fire on him. If an American fired full auto, the Vietnamese would begin yelling, presumably an equivalent phrase.
Bill said everyone fired semi auto.

[Loach]

@Mekhazzio

I wouldn’t consider fully automatic fire to be a necessary trait of an assault rifle. An AR-15 is still within acceptable use of the term, IMO.

I’d go with

• mid-sized round, stronger than pistols, less than full-size battle rifle
• large capacity removable magazine
  and you’re done.

I think fully automatic fire is only a necessity if you’re going for “light machine gun”. And then you’ll need a quick-change barrel to go with it.

edit: all the pistol grip, bipod, bayonet stuff is irrelevant, resulting from the same oversimplication that leads to any armored vehicle with tracks getting called a “tank”, even when it clearly is not one.

It’s fun to make up our own definitions of words.

[carnivorousplant]

@Loach

It’s fun to make up our own definitions of words.

Perhaps “Assault Rifle” and “assault rifle”.

Is the US Army sidearm also capable of three round bursts?

[running_coach]

@carnivorousplant

Perhaps “Assault Rifle” and “assault rifle”.

Is the US Army sidearm also capable of three round bursts?

In a roundabout way, yes. The Beretta 93R is derived from the 92.

It was last produced in 1993.

[John_Mace]

@Loach

It’s fun to make up our own definitions of words.

Honest question: Does there have to be one and only one definition? Does the military have a monopoly on that definition?

Why not a military definition for what they need and a civilian definition for what is legal in a non-military situation?

[Dissonance]

@Loach

Just want to point out that the most recent versions of US military assault rifles do not have full auto capability. They are select fire between semi-auto and 3 round burst.

@Mekhazzio

I wouldn’t consider fully automatic fire to be a necessary trait of an assault rifle. An AR-15 is still within acceptable use of the term, IMO.

Also the Commonwealth version of the FN FAL, the L1A1, isn’t capable of burst or automatic fire but is considered an assault rifle nonetheless; so automatic fire capability isn’t a requirement to be considered an assault rifle. Ironically FAL stands for Fusil Automatique Léger (Light Automatic Rifle).

[Dissonance]

@mhendo

And yet, as noted by several posters above, the US military’s own definition of an assault rifle does indeed require the option of automatic fire. The US military doesn’t define an “assault weapon”; it defines an “assault rifle.” According to US Army/Defense Intelligence Agency documents like the one here: A key requirement of the military definition is that an assault rifle have selective fire capability. You have to be able to select automatic, rather just semi-auto, for it to qualify. An AR-15 doesn’t fit the bill. The manual i linked to above even has a separate category, simply called “Rifles,” for rifles that do not possess the automatic fire capabilities of an assault rifle.

Using that manual’s definition you quoted, the US Army’s own M4A1 isn’t an assault rifle as it isn’t capable of full automatic fire. Mind you the linked manual is from 1973, entitled “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide Eurasian Communist Countries 1973.”

[Loach]

@John_Mace

Honest question: Does there have to be one and only one definition? Does the military have a monopoly on that definition?

Why not a military definition for what they need and a civilian definition for what is legal in a non-military situation?

As you well know when you are talking about legalities it’s important to use precise language. That is the reason in the law they did not use the term assault rifle but instead went with assault weapon with a different meaning.

[John_Mace]

@Loach

As you well know when you are talking about legalities it’s important to use precise language. That is the reason in the law they did not use the term assault rifle but instead went with assault weapon with a different meaning.

I would assume that whatever legislation was passed contained an explicit definition of the term. Laws usually do.

[Crafter_Man]

@Dissonance

Also the Commonwealth version of the FN FAL, the L1A1, isn’t capable of burst or automatic fire but is considered an assault rifle nonetheless; so automatic fire capability isn’t a requirement to be considered an assault rifle. Ironically FAL stands for Fusil Automatique Léger (Light Automatic Rifle).

Ten years ago I assembled a metric FAL using a new IMBEL barrel and IMBEL Type III receiver. It’s my favorite weapon.