What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?

[Chuck Guiteau]

Except, as I recall, it was the not particularly effective method of prying and spraying that make selective fire with a 3 shot burst need to be added. Worried troops tended to expend much ammo to not much effect doing the full auto thing IIRC.

BStrong is right. Most well trained troops (and the US Army trains its troops well) use semi-auto fire when engaging targets at distance, and know fully well not to spray and pray. But when you have five or six enemy charging your foxhole at very close range, three shot bursts are worthless. You need rock and roll if you plan to survive.
The same goes for house clearing. That's why the M4 is now made in two models, one with burst fire and one full auto.

 

[Mudcat]

The selector isn't called "the fun switch" for nothing.

Seriously, for the most part, N.F.A. weapons and devices are owned for reasons other than the practcal, just like 100K $ wristwatches and motorcycles that can exceed 200 MPH.

So essentially its a meaningless status symbol that serves to strokes your ego?

Okay then.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So essentially its a meaningless status symbol that serves to strokes your ego?

Yeah, pretty much. Full auto is a fun way to waste ammo, but a terrible way to do anything other than provide covering fire.

 

[Noztradamus]

So essentially its a meaningless status symbol that serves to strokes your ego?

Okay then.

Yep, it's like a Prius in that way.

 

[theprestige]

Point out where I claimed that any are available to civilians now, please.

I was asking if there would be any practicality to having selective fire on civilian owned weapons.

You've got it backwards: Bearing arms is a right. It's up to you to give a good reason why civilians shouldn't have select fire.

 

[Mudcat]

You've got it backwards: Bearing arms is a right.

Point out where I claimed otherwise, if you would be so kind.

It's up to you to give a good reason why civilians shouldn't have select fire.

Really? All you have is reversing the burden of proof? Also isn't the reason why they shouldn't have it is because it is illegal to have without a special permit?

 

[BStrong]

So essentially its a meaningless status symbol that serves to strokes your ego?

Okay then.

It's all that and more.

Many of the amnesty registered MG's (1968 Gun Control Act requirement allowed a 60 day window to register N.F.A. weapons and devices w/o paying the $200.00 transfer tax) are interesting historical pieces, as well as in some cases weapons carried by individual U.S. troops that they brought back after service - there was actually a letter written by the Treasury Department after WWII complaining that the War Department did not cooperate in determing the legality of MG's held by returning G.I.'s including U.S. issue marked weapons - it was more common than you might think that an EM, NCO or officer brought back the Thompson, BAR or some captured enemy MG or Destructive device they got their hands on during their service.

That was the case in some of the stuff my father reg'd in '68.

That's my friend shooting my 1918A2 BAR manufactured by New England Small Arms company. My father carried it serving as a Marine in Korea. There is no amount of money on this planet that would pry it out of my hands.

 

[applecorped]

What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?



Political affiliation.

 

[balrog666]

 

[applecorped]

It's all that and more.

Many of the amnesty registered MG's (1968 Gun Control Act requirement allowed a 60 day window to register N.F.A. weapons and devices w/o paying the $200.00 transfer tax) are interesting historical pieces, as well as in some cases weapons carried by individual U.S. troops that they brought back after service - there was actually a letter written by the Treasury Department after WWII complaining that the War Department did not cooperate in determing the legality of MG's held by returning G.I.'s including U.S. issue marked weapons - it was more common than you might think that an EM, NCO or officer brought back the Thompson, BAR or some captured enemy MG or Destructive device they got their hands on during their service.

That was the case in some of the stuff my father reg'd in '68.

http://imageshack.us/a/img534/192/thebar.jpg

That's my friend shooting my 1918A2 BAR manufactured by New England Small Arms company. My father carried it serving as a Marine in Korea. There is no amount of money on this planet that would pry it out of my hands.

Better than a pocket watch (hidden from the enemy in a safe place)

 

[BStrong]

Better than a pocket watch (hidden from the enemy in a safe place)

Gratuitous Pulp Fiction referrence noted and appreciated.

If not for that piece and my father's skill in using it, I wouldn't be here.

Financial and political considerations aside, that's a powerful motivation for keeping it.

 

[BStrong]

[qimg]http://public.bn1.livefilestore.com/y1ph7VsrcTwQLXkBDJ2W9fOzS7fo697TWtbTXKOTrgkvvq8R_CoIfocuuOX2-GoapCyXCcw5S-LsDdGSWMX25XSCg/77d3d70b.jpg?rdrts=38073023[/qimg]

Actually it's worse than that.

As a rule, journalists rely soely on reports from LE wrt firearms, and never question what information they are provided.

If an LE administrator with an axe to grind decribes a firearm as a machine gun or assault weapon, that description stands, even if facts later determined in court refute the original report.

Reporters are generally unfamilar with firearms, and will take LE statements as de facto expert testimony without question.

 

[TerminusEst]

DNRTT; however, it usually has to do with the penis.

Yet another useless comment which shows nothing but ignorance and contempt towards gun owners.

Thanks for the input!

In regards to full-auto being more deadly, I think that's really a hard thing to prove. It was my understanding that almost all fully automatic fire by the military is used as suppressive fire with little or no intent to injure or kill. It's intended to make the enemy keep their heads down and stay put. Add to that the fact that full-auto fire will empty a 30 round magazine in mere seconds and it really is not that useful in a firefight.

Those with military experience please correct any mistakes I made.

 

[jimbob]

Semi-automatics only have a rate of fire as fast as the trigger finger can pull the trigger. Yeah, there's bump-firing but that's about as effective a use of the firearm as "ghost-riding" is for driving a car.

Before the 1994 stupidity, there was a perfectly good technical definition of "assault rifle" (not "assault weapon", since if I snap off a car antenna and whip someone across the eyes with it, it's technically an assault weapon):

• Fully automatic capability
• Intermediate rifle cartridge
• Small arm (as opposed to crew-served).

Any weapon with the first and third of those criteria but chambered in a pistol cartridge is a sub-machine gun (or machine pistol in Europe).

Fully-automatic shotguns are so rare that there is no specific definition for them other than "fully-automatic shotgun".

By definition, a semi-automatic weapon cannot be an assault rifle, sub-machine gun or fully-automatic shotgun.

Since the term "assault weapon" is an emotional politically-loaded term rather than technical jargon, and can be applied to whatever the hell the user wants to apply it to (see Dianne Feinstein deciding what constitutes "assault weapons" just by looking at pictures), the term is utterly meaningless.

If we are talking about how they are used (as opposed to legal definitions) then I'd say that total length should be important.

I'm thinking that the SA80 (L85) is used as an assault rifle whilst the LSW isn't.

 

[WildCat]

Add to that the fact that full-auto fire will empty a 30 round magazine in mere seconds and it really is not that useful in a firefight.

Except in the movies, where the hero fires full auto all the time and never even has to change magazines, let alone runs out of ammo.

 

[fuelair]

Except in the movies, where the hero fires full auto all the time and never even has to change magazines, let alone runs out of ammo.

Or ruin the barrel.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Selective fire.

/thread

I would disagree with that criteria.

"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

<---- Looks at the thread title

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

By definition, a semi-automatic weapon cannot be an assault rifle, sub-machine gun or fully-automatic shotgun.

But isn't semantics precisely the problem. If one really wants to be accurate, what does one call a semi-automatic assult rifle? "A semi-automatic civilian version of an assualt rifle" is way too cumbersome and "rifle" isn't sufficently accurate.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

But isn't semantics precisely the problem. If one really wants to be accurate, what does one call a semi-automatic assult rifle? "A semi-automatic civilian version of an assualt rifle" is way too cumbersome and "rifle" isn't sufficently accurate.

You call it a semi-automatic rifle. That's what they are.
The term "assault weapon" is an invention by the anti-gun crowd and is intended to be as general as possible. This way it can be used to ban things that are seldom used in crimes, but scary looking. It can also be used to ban things that aren't scary looking later on down the road, and eventually everything.
A good example would be the mini-14. With a black nylon or carbon fiber stock and a flash suppressor, it becomes an "assault weapon" even though both those things have nothing to do with how inherently dangerous the rifle is. A mini-14 Ranch Rifle still uses exactly the same operating system, has the same semi-auto capability, accepts the same magazines, etc. The only difference is the cosmetic appearance, which is enough to fool the ignorant, and more than enough once the ignorant have been sufficiently propagandized by the liberal left.
The next obvious step would be for some genius in the liberal left to say, "Wait a minute! That's the same gun we banned last year! We need to outlaw it, too."
An incremental policy of gradual confiscation has long been the agenda of the liberal left. The only thing new is the boldness which they now exhibit, no doubt because the first step towards the great people's victory seems assured. They've actually become so arrogant they're publishing the agenda in the far left blogs, magazines and websites now.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You call it a semi-automatic rifle. That's what they are.
{snip a bunch of stuff I knew 30 years ago and a bunch of political noise}

Well, I don't. I use the accurte nomencalture "semi-automatic assault rifle" or the less accurate because I don't get a bug up my ass about semantics, "assault rifle" like I did when I owned my Norinco AK c.1990 and my post-ban MAK-90 c.1996.

This stupid semantic argument offered by far to many RTKBA folks is little more than a distraction and red herring. By the logic of what you aver above, we should refer to a semi-auto Uzi or MP5 as a semi-auto sub-gun or semi-auto gun.

More time needs to be spent on the cosmetic argument and the actual numbers (crimes committed now viz. those during and before the 1994 AWB), etc. and less on a BS semantic argument.