What is an assault rifle?

To me, "Assault Rifle" is simply a political term created and used by the anti-gun crowd.

Heck, just look at what California considers to be an "Assault Rifle":

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following: (A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Click to expand...

I mean, that is just insane! Come on, a Grenade Launcher? I think in that case I would be much more worried about the grenades being launched then the rifle itself. Flash Suppressor? I had one on my last rifle, I got tired of getting dirt kicked up in my face when I was practicing in the prone position. How does one of those make a weapon more dangerous or deadly?

At least they finally doprred "Bayonet Lug" from the list. That was something that really had me scratching my head. Are we worried about people being shot, or being stabbed by really clumsy spears? In all the years I have been hearing of such shootings, I can honestly say I have never heard of one where victims were stabbed by bayonets.

This entire list (and most like it) are simply insane. 98% of the items listed are purely cosmetic, and have absolutely nothing to do with how deadly the weapon is. And notice, it says nothing about Automatic Fire, or the type of rounds being used (other then they be center fire rounds).

Heck, if I had the money and wanted to get around all of these requirements, I would just invent a .30 calibre rim fire round, and start selling AR15 copies that used this round. Since it is rimfire, it is exempt from almost all "assault rifle" bans.

Oozlefinch said:

To me, "Assault Rifle" is simply a political term created and used by the anti-gun crowd.

Heck, just look at what California considers to be an "Assault Rifle":



I mean, that is just insane! Come on, a Grenade Launcher? I think in that case I would be much more worried about the grenades being launched then the rifle itself. Flash Suppressor? I had one on my last rifle, I got tired of getting dirt kicked up in my face when I was practicing in the prone position. How does one of those make a weapon more dangerous or deadly?

At least they finally doprred "Bayonet Lug" from the list. That was something that really had me scratching my head. Are we worried about people being shot, or being stabbed by really clumsy spears? In all the years I have been hearing of such shootings, I can honestly say I have never heard of one where victims were stabbed by bayonets.

This entire list (and most like it) are simply insane. 98% of the items listed are purely cosmetic, and have absolutely nothing to do with how deadly the weapon is. And notice, it says nothing about Automatic Fire, or the type of rounds being used (other then they be center fire rounds).

Heck, if I had the money and wanted to get around all of these requirements, I would just invent a .30 calibre rim fire round, and start selling AR15 copies that used this round. Since it is rimfire, it is exempt from almost all "assault rifle" bans.

Click to expand...

really dude?.. you think it's all a bunch of BS?... havent you heard about all those killings that took place because of thumbhole stocks?

my oh my, those thumbholes in stocks are frickin eviiiiiiiiil!.. only satan or hitler would approve of thumbholes.... the absence of material in the stock is just downright frightening to even think about <shutters>

Thrilla said:

really dude?.. you think it's all a bunch of BS?... havent you heard about all those killings that took place because of thumbhole stocks?

my oh my, those thumbholes in stocks are frickin eviiiiiiiiil!.. only satan or hitler would approve of thumbholes.... the absence of material in the stock is just downright frightening to even think about <shutters>

Click to expand...

I myself hate the "Assault Rifle Bans", because I have seen how they can be used and abused.

about 25 years ago, I bought a Ruger 10/22. And deciding to use it as an inexpensive way to practice my chooting, I fitted it out with an almost exact copy of an M-16 frame. Pistol grip, carrying handle, 30 round magazine, folding stock (that was just how it came), and I added a flash suppressor for the reason I stated earlier (to keep dirt out of my face). However, by doing so I put on multiple items that made this cosmetically an "assault rifle".

Then in 1991, this rifle was stollen. It was later recovered, and I went to the police station to pick it up. I was told they do not return weapons recovered, and I threatened to take them to court if they did not return it, policy or no policy. Now at this time, I did not know all the rules about the new assault-rifle ban. But I was shown a piece of paper, and the cop showed how many features on my weapon made it an "Assault Rifle". And that if I pressed them any more, they were going to arrest and prosecute me for illegally bringing an assault rifle into the state of California.

later on I found out that was not true, but it is besides the point. Why would some slight modifications to a weapon that are all cosmetic make it any more deadly then another unmodified rifle?

Oozlefinch said:

I myself hate the "Assault Rifle Bans", because I have seen how they can be used and abused.

about 25 years ago, I bought a Ruger 10/22. And deciding to use it as an inexpensive way to practice my chooting, I fitted it out with an almost exact copy of an M-16 frame. Pistol grip, carrying handle, 30 round magazine, folding stock (that was just how it came), and I added a flash suppressor for the reason I stated earlier (to keep dirt out of my face). However, by doing so I put on multiple items that made this cosmetically an "assault rifle".

Then in 1991, this rifle was stollen. It was later recovered, and I went to the police station to pick it up. I was told they do not return weapons recovered, and I threatened to take them to court if they did not return it, policy or no policy. Now at this time, I did not know all the rules about the new assault-rifle ban. But I was shown a piece of paper, and the cop showed how many features on my weapon made it an "Assault Rifle". And that if I pressed them any more, they were going to arrest and prosecute me for illegally bringing an assault rifle into the state of California.

later on I found out that was not true, but it is besides the point. Why would some slight modifications to a weapon that are all cosmetic make it any more deadly then another unmodified rifle?

Click to expand...

ugh... sorry to hear you had to find out the AWB was a fraud the hard way.....

I don't really know what the technical definition is. I generally apply the term to a military standard-issue rifle that may be automatic or semi-automatic, or to civilian-legal versions of such rifles. Classic examples are the AK and AR pattern rifles.

molten_dragon said:

I don't really know what the technical definition is. I generally apply the term to a military standard-issue rifle that may be automatic or semi-automatic, or to civilian-legal versions of such rifles. Classic examples are the AK and AR pattern rifles.

Click to expand...

But this is laughingly vague.

What if I take a non-military rifle, and then mount it in an M-16 stock? It is not an M-16, it just looks like one. SO why is it suddenly an "assault rifle", just because I made some cosmetic changes?

Heck, I can get a conversion kit to take an old VW Beatle, and make it look exactly like a Humvee.



But guess what, it's still not a Hummer, it's just a tricked up Volkswagen. And that is basically what we are talking about here. The laws (and public perception) have nothing to do with reality, only with appearance.

I mean, tell me. What is the reall difference between this:



And this:



Other then one has a bunch of rather pointless attachments that do not really make the gun any more deadly.

I got a great idea, let's mandate all "Assault Rifles" look like this:



And yes, that is a fully functional semi-automatic AK-47. And it can be yours, for only $1,072.95.

GlamGuns.com! Guns for Girls and Glamorous Weaponry!

And they have many other great items, like Care Bear body armor, and a "My Little Carbine", their take on the classic M-16 style.



If you ask me, these are to cute to ever be considered "Assault Rifles".

Oozlefinch said:

But this is laughingly vague.

Click to expand...

Oh sure it is. It's definitely a vague term, aimed more at the looks of a gun than the function of it. I don't support assault weapon bans, I was just pointing out my definition of assault weapon.

Bodhisattva said:

Not really. I agree with him. Who cares what an "assault rifle" is? Automatic. Semi-Auto. Machine gun. ??? Who cares but people that like guns? And their purpose IS to kill people. Just facts.

Click to expand...

Willfully ignoring relevant facts is not an appealing or logical way to assess an issue.

Goshin said:

Willfully ignoring relevant facts is not an appealing or logical way to assess an issue.

Click to expand...

Am I ignoring a fact and if so what one? I am nothing if not open to learn.

Bodhisattva said:

Am I ignoring a fact and if so what one? I am nothing if not open to learn.

Click to expand...

If you're dismissing the difference between semi-auto and full auto, you are certainly ignoring relevant facts.


Full auto lends itself readily to spraying large numbers of bullets around nearly at random.

Semi-auto, not so much.

Goshin said:

If you're dismissing the difference between semi-auto and full auto, you are certainly ignoring relevant facts.


Full auto lends itself readily to spraying large numbers of bullets around nearly at random.

Semi-auto, not so much.

Click to expand...

I am not ignoring that. I know there is a difference. I have watched enough movies to know. I have also shot an M-16, Uzi, AK-47 and a full machine gun (browning something from the Vietnam War?).

I said that I don't care what an assault rifle is.

The point is that they all are designed to kill.

EDIT: I am pro-gun, BTW. I am thinking about buying one here but I have to find out what the laws are in this nearly gunless society.

Bodhisattva said:

I am not ignoring that. I know there is a difference. I have watched enough movies to know. I have also shot an M-16, Uzi, AK-47 and a full machine gun (browning something from the Vietnam War?).

I said that I don't care what an assault rifle is.

The point is that they all are designed to kill.

EDIT: I am pro-gun, BTW. I am thinking about buying one here but I have to find out what the laws are in this nearly gunless society.

Click to expand...

All purpose made weapons are designed to kill or inflict harm... that is why we call them weapons. What's your point?

Goshin said:

All purpose made weapons are designed to kill or inflict harm... that is why we call them weapons. What's your point?

Click to expand...

Somebody made a point that guns were not designed to kill people. I think that is silly and just pointed out the error in that line of thinking. I can't remember who said it now but I don't see us having a fundamental disagreement on anything.

Bodhisattva said:

Somebody made a point that guns were not designed to kill people. I think that is silly and just pointed out the error in that line of thinking. I can't remember who said it now but I don't see us having a fundamental disagreement on anything.

Click to expand...

Well, not all guns are designed to kill people. Many are designed to kill deer, squirrels, quail, or clay pigeons.

I've heard the theory advanced that the intermediate-power cartridge used by "assault rifles" such as the M16 and M4 are intended to wound more often than kill... on the theory that a wounded man is more of a drain on the enemy's resources than a dead man. It is certainly true that, for instance, a 30-06 deer rifle is FAR more deadly per-round than a .223 M-16/AR15.

Darn it, I have to run into town... laters.

I'm no expert of definition and I will be the first to admit it. I get lost in technical conversation with true gun experts such as my friend Turtledude. Perhaps we should defer to his definition. That's the one I would most believe.

But an assault rifle, as far as I am concerned, is any rifle used to assault somebody. I don't care if it's a BB gun.

What we need to do is neutralize the assaulters. Don't matter to me what kind of rifle they use. Or pistol. Or knife. Or a truck full of diesel and fertilizer.

Evil will find a way. Our wise move would be to regulate the causes and influences of this evil. No matter what approach we end up taking, if we take any at all, (as in 10 days, this news cycle and attention span will have done faded into the next,) some rights will have to be compromised. Somewhere.

Should we abolish the commonplace violence shown with little or no regard on the movie screens? The gangster music? The video games? The 24/7 sensationalizing cable news media?

We are bombarded with visuals of bodies being drug throgh the streets. Drones blowing up schoolhouses. Fires. Floods. Death, death, death. Dark evil. Evil glorified in 3D technicolor.

Now people watch this stuff and read about it with the same regard as watching Jersey Shore. Desensitized to the max. Just another cheeky day.

But that would curtail our right to free speech, no?

Should we make a list of guns that are deemed acceptable for public use OR just outlaw the whole lot of them, with a zero tolerance policy stating that getting caught with a gun would result in your hidden execution within 48 hours? Disappear. Gone. No headlines. How many rights would that stomp on? Zillions.....

No, there's only one solution for the direction our society is taking. And it calls for divine intervention. The spirit has to change. People are going to HAVE to WANT to change.

However, until it hits us personally, in our homes, our churches, our schools, we will continue to voice our dismay and shed our tears as we continue to sit on our hands. That's what's going to happen.

This too shall pass.

But I'm going to make a peanut butter sandwich.

Bodhisattva said:

I am not ignoring that. I know there is a difference. I have watched enough movies to know. I have also shot an M-16, Uzi, AK-47 and a full machine gun (browning something from the Vietnam War?).

I said that I don't care what an assault rifle is.

The point is that they all are designed to kill.

EDIT: I am pro-gun, BTW. I am thinking about buying one here but I have to find out what the laws are in this nearly gunless society.

Click to expand...

Lots of things are designed for one purpose but used for others. Why is the original intent relevant here?

As to the term itself. The military defined it so that is the correct definition.

OhIsee.Then said:

By what authority? Does everyone accept their definition?

Click to expand...

The Germans who invented the class of rifle, and the various others who adopted the concept and integrated those weapons into their military forces. Doesn't matter one bit how many people accept it or not.

Who cares what it is? This isn't the topic the nation needs. It is the topic the media needs to sell more news, instead of doing a good job and reporting what they should. It is also a catchy jingle for politicians who can't solve the real issue.

Surtr said:

The Germans who invented the class of rifle, and the various others who adopted the concept and integrated those weapons into their military forces. Doesn't matter one bit how many people accept it or not.

Click to expand...

Speaking of that, did you hear that last week (or so) someone in CT went to turn her old rifle in at one of the buy back programs and found out it was a 1944 Sturmgewehr? Fortunately, the cop who was handling the program wasn't just a simple bureaucrat or a dirtball con artist and he told her what she had.

Goshin said:

...I've heard the theory advanced that the intermediate-power cartridge used by "assault rifles" such as the M16 and M4 are intended to wound more often than kill...

Click to expand...

I think it has to do more with weight and cost. Lighter bullets means a higher combat load, and you can carry a hell of a lot more 5.56 rounds than 30-06 or 308.

I disagree with the wound myth, simply because they train us to put two rounds in the chest. That will kill a man.

Lutherf said:

Speaking of that, did you hear that last week (or so) someone in CT went to turn her old rifle in at one of the buy back programs and found out it was a 1944 Sturmgewehr? Fortunately, the cop who was handling the program wasn't just a simple bureaucrat or a dirtball con artist and he told her what she had.

Click to expand...

Good. I don't see why that would even be buy-backable. It's not a functioning weapon, it's an antique with a very interesting history.

Surtr said:

I think it has to do more with weight and cost. Lighter bullets means a higher combat load, and you can carry a hell of a lot more 5.56 rounds than 30-06 or 308.

I disagree with the wound myth, simply because they train us to put two rounds in the chest. That will kill a man.

Click to expand...

Yeah, prolly so.

I had a good friend who died not long ago, he was a Viet Nam Spec Ops vet, who talked about the same thing: weight and quantity of ammo. Said he prefered to pack an M16 and 50% more ammo than a heavier battle-rifle and less ammo... of course he was operating in the jungle mostly. Open plains would possibly change the equation a bit.

Goshin said:

Well, not all guns are designed to kill people. Many are designed to kill deer, squirrels, quail, or clay pigeons.

I've heard the theory advanced that the intermediate-power cartridge used by "assault rifles" such as the M16 and M4 are intended to wound more often than kill... on the theory that a wounded man is more of a drain on the enemy's resources than a dead man. It is certainly true that, for instance, a 30-06 deer rifle is FAR more deadly per-round than a .223 M-16/AR15.

Click to expand...

That and its profit for our contractors who need to bring in health care facilities.

Goshin said:

Yeah, prolly so.

I had a good friend who died not long ago, he was a Viet Nam Spec Ops vet, who talked about the same thing: weight and quantity of ammo. Said he prefered to pack an M16 and 50% more ammo than a heavier battle-rifle and less ammo... of course he was operating in the jungle mostly. Open plains would possibly change the equation a bit.

Click to expand...

We need to bring back the pack mule...