Talk:Assault rifle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Assault rifle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I've modified the article to work around some ambigious wording. The first paragraph read "Examples of assault rifles incorrectly include the AR-15", and then continued on after that point to list actual assault rifles. I've instead broken off the paragraph to give a short list of assault rifles (using the list and wording already provided), and added an addendum pointing out that semi-automatic rifles are not correctly called "assault rifles". Rosensteel 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

"Assault rifles cause injuries more often than death. Doctrines vary concerning this effect. The U.S. military states that this is an intentional goal. "

Can anyone provide any citations for these facts? I have heard it thrown around frequently by gun shop commandos but never seen any actual documentation. It seems to me that purposely wounding without an attempt to kill would be contrary to the rules of war established by the Geneva and Hague conventions. If no one can do this I would suggest the passages about wounding be removed.

Not trying to get a full thread going, but: The idea of wounding, not killing to put more stress on the other sides resources is an "urban myth". My father was an old military man, fought New Guinea and later an instructor at the "Command College". He pointed out that the idea is just a sound bite and, (as with many things) the devil is in the details. 1) If you wound the guy and he keeps fighting he may kill you. 2) If you wound the guy and then capture him, you can either violate the Geneva convention or caring for him is now YOUR problem. 3) If you wound him and the enemy ends up with him, depending on their culture (Americans have a terrible time understanding this) they can shoot/allow to die or treat him. If he is considered more valuable treated and returned to combat, this is what they do. In either case, they DON'T violate the Geneva convention since he is their own soldier.67.174.53.196 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This is a basically very good article, but I see two problems. I'd be bold in updating and correct it myself, but I'm afraid that I haven't really got the time this evening. (And I accidentally created a firestorm with my Gun safety page, so I'd like to let others handle this article. :-) )

1. The article should make the point more clear about the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The article does make the distinction, but it describes 'assault rifles' as having a 'selective rate of fire', which is true only of true assault rifles, i.e. true military fully automatic rifles. The civilian versions are semi-automatic.

2. As much as I agree with the argument that the only significant difference between "assault rifles" and low powered hunting rifles is the selective rate of fire, I think this needs to be better supported.

Those who are in support of "assault weapons bans" often use dishonest arguments about "high rate of fire" and so forth. but there are honest defenders of these laws who point to such features as pistol grips as making these guns particularly suitable for "spray and pray" criminals. I don't agree with these poeple, but the argument needs to be noted as an honest point.

Is that political point even appropriate for this page? Perhaps it is. But we need to be careful to present the debate, rather than take a side in the debate. We can best present the debate by giving the strongest arguments from each side.

---

The main part of the article is very informative, I like it! The bit about the ban in California seemed out of place, though ... I've moved it to a subpage for now.

I see that the politics tie somewhat into the definition that various groups tag to the "Assault rifle" term. Maybe just mention that on the page itself? Other than that, I think the gun politics should be confined to their own page ... --Robbe

---

I certainly agree with Robbe: All aspects realting to gun regulation politics should be located on a separate page (with a pointer from here perhaps) and this page dedicated to hard facts about assault rifles. I think it's a good article, informative and fairly exhaustive, some politics pruning and we should be home free :-) By the way, isn't an assauylt rifle a military weapon by definition? Is there such a thing as a civilian assault rifle? Ah, better put that on US gun politics, hehe. --Anders Törlind

As a temporary measure, would be alright to shift the stuff on resisting tyranny to a /politics subpage? --Robert Merkel

---

I've bitten the bullet and moved it here for the moment. It needs to be made NPOV and shifted to a seperate politics page. --Robert Merkel

Effects on governance

Bayonet lugs, flash-suppression, large magazines and selective-fire are the significant functional differences between an assault rifle and a low-powered, lightweight hunting rifle. These are not large differences. Large capacity magazines and flash suppressors are easy to install. Lightly trained persons can simulate selective fire with any type of repeating rifle, including old-west lever-actions. Bayonet lugs serve only dire military situations.

Thus, as one would expect, forces armed primarily with true assault rifles are relatively ineffective except against unarmed persons. Non-governmental organizations with expedient arms have successfully resisted them.

In the U.S., most civilian weapons labelled "assault rifles" lack selective fire. Their magazines contain ten rounds or less. They fire once for each pull of the trigger, and have no way to act as "machine guns." This allows owners to avoid paying the $200 treasury fee and licensing required to own a small automatic weapon in the U.S. The weapons threaten members of civil government simply because they are effective small arms. Many owners see this as a check on tyranny, and training for civil defense.

---

How about a section clearly stating the definition of the assault rifle as historically originated by the Stg44:

1. select fire, with both semi-automatic and fully-automatic modes;
2. an intermediate cartridge, between a pistol and rifle round in power;
3. a large-capacity detachable box magazine, usually 20 rounds or higher.

And the current usage, with a note on its controversy, of "assault weapon", which is quite different. I believe the most relevant codified definition of "assault weapon" is in the USA AWB of 1994.

--Blikbok 17:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The history-chapter seems to be rather long with all the examples, especially when most of the rifles already have their own separate articles. How about breaking the history to its separate article or at least breaking the example rifles to their own articles? Btw, I copied the M-16 image to the introduction chapter. --ZeroOne 12:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Assault_rifle article:

• Can link fire support: ...on== The typical mission of an assault rifle is to provide fire support at ranges up to 200 meters by ordinary troops. It is design... (link to section)
• Can link anti-personnel: ...to 200 meters by ordinary troops. It is designed for massed anti-personnel fire at short ranges with simple maintenance.... (link to section)
• Can link The U: ...re often than death. Doctrines vary concerning this effect. The U.S. military states that this is an intentional goal. Enemy... (link to section)
• Can link side-effect: ...an accounts state that the lower lethality is an accidental side-effect of the cartridge's smaller powder charge, which they tried ... (link to section)
• Can link fully automatic: ...shot under combat conditions. The U.S. still does not issue fully automatic weapons to ordinary riflemen in order to reduce the amount ... (link to section)
• Can link front line: ...ntities to radio operators, officers, and troops other than front line riflemen.... (link to section)
• Can link military training: ...valent to a squad automatic weapon is a part of most normal military training. Fully automatic assault rifles can, at a pinch, replace a ... (link to section)
• Can link light infantry: ...47, although classified as assault rifles, were designed as light infantry automatic weapons with single-shot capability, rather than ... (link to section)
• Can link single-shot: ...les, were designed as light infantry automatic weapons with single-shot capability, rather than rifles with the option of full -aut... (link to section)
• Can link semi-automatic: ...ed (for [[assault weapons ban (USA)|political reasons]]) to semi-automatic [[gun]]s. Arms manufacturers had for decades advertised the... (link to section)
• Can link German army: ...cribe similar weapons. For much of the pre-WWII period the German army had relied on the machine gun as the primary infantry weapo...
• Can link close combat: ...ry weapon, with rifles as a support weapon only. However in close combat both weapons proved largely ineffective, the machine gun be...
• Can link British Army: ...0px|'''Enfield EM-2''']] In the immediate post-war era the British Army, like many other forces, started research into their own ve... (link to section)
• Can link Canadian army: ...nd started development of their own rifles based on it. The Canadian army also expressed interest in the new round, both to maintain ... (link to section)
• Can link Small Arms: ...with the British, and to modernize their forces. The Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield started working on two generally similar... (link to section)
• Can link semi-auto: ...his meant the US had spent a lot of money changing from one semi-auto system, the [[Garand]], to another, the M -14. Other forces... (link to section)
• Can link 5.56 mm: ...t a slimmer bullet of the same general weight as the M-16's 5.56 mm (.223") would result in the same ability to be fired in ful... (link to section)
• Can link mass produced: ...tzerland|Swiss army]] is by any standards the most accurate mass produced assault rifle available. It also set the standard for the l... (link to section)
• Can link US armed forces: ...e latest NATO specification ammunition which is now used by US armed forces in their latest M16A2 assault rifles. Comparable in size to... (link to section)
• Can link private ownership: ... 300 meter precision contests and over 100,000 are in Swiss private ownership. The 550P is one of few assault rifles made in vivid colors... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In January 23, can backlink assault rifle: ...Mir Aimal Kasi]] receives the death sentence for a [[1993]] assault rifle attack outside [[CIA]] headquarters that killed two and wou...
• In 2001, can backlink assault rifle: ...g, his mother and other members of the royal family with an assault rifle and then shoots himself. He dies three days later...
• In 1997, can backlink assault rifle: ...Mir Aimal Kasi]] receives the death sentence for a [[1993]] assault rifle attack outside [[CIA]] headquarters that killed two and wou...
• In 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, can backlink assault rifle: ...les and machine guns * Israeli [[IMI Negev]] SAW, [[Galil]] assault rifle and [[Tavor TAR-21]] bullpup assault rifle...
• In Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2002, can backlink assault rifles: ...nse Forces|IDF]] post near the Gaza Strip with grenades and assault rifles. The soldiers managed to kill one of the attackers. [http:/...
• In Israel Defense Forces, can backlink assault rifle: ...i Developments:''' * Small Arms ** [[Tavor TAR-21]] bullpup assault rifle...
• In U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, can backlink assault rifles: ...sed of Arabs, withdrew with mortars, rocket launchers, and assault rifles to higher fortified positions and dug in for the battle....
• In Counter-Strike console commands, can backlink assault rifle: ...ct 4;menuselect 1;buy;menuselect 4;menuselect 3" // buy the assault rifle (ak47/m4a1) available to your side and post an error that y...
• In Patty Hearst, can backlink assault rifle: ...on [[April 15]], [[1974]], she was photographed wielding an assault rifle while robbing the Sunset branch of the Hibernia bank. Late...
• In Grenzschutzgruppe 9, can backlink assault rifle: ...h]] PSG-1 sniper rifle and G8 automatic rifle. *[[SIG 550]] assault rifle...
• In Royal Marines, can backlink assault rifle: ...nt Weapons == * The [[SA80|SA80A2]] - Controversial 5.56 mm assault rifle (accepts [[M16|M16A2]] magazines)...
• In List of Jews, can backlink assault rifle: ...ine gun * [[ Israel Galili]], Israeli designer of the Galil assault rifle...
• In FN FAL, can backlink assault rifle: ...er of countries that adopted it, over 70. Unlike the AK-47 assault rifle, the FAL utilized a full-power [[rifle]] [[cartridge (weapo...
• In Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, can backlink Assault rifle: ...0]] Submachine gun *[[Sturmgewehr 44|Sturmgewehr (StG) 44]] Assault rifle...
• In Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 2003, can backlink assault rifles: ...g her younger sister) wounded when Palestinians, armed with assault rifles, attack the car they were travelling in, on road no. 6, som...
• In British Free Corps, can backlink assault rifle: ...ng methods. They were also issued with the [[StG44 (MP44)]] assault rifle and given training in its use. The unit strength was cut do...
• In Terminal ballistics, can backlink assault rifle: ...or fragmentation upon impact. The Warsaw Pact 5.45 x 39 mm assault rifle round exemplifies a trend that is becoming common in the er...
• In Afghanistan timeline February 15-28, 2003, can backlink assault rifles: ... an orchard behind a compound, soldiers found two [[AK-47]] assault rifles beneath a wet burlap sack. The village elder said some fami...
• In Afghanistan timeline November 2002, can backlink assault rifles: ...lian clothing opened fire on the U.S. forces with [[AK-47]] assault rifles. The soldiers returned fire, killing one man. The other esc...
• In Fedayeen Saddam, can backlink assault rifles: ...s. During the invasion, Fedayeen fighters wielded AK-47 assault rifles, rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, and truck-mounted...
• In Beretta, can backlink assault rifles: ...uns, self-loading shotguns, hunting rifles, express rifles, assault rifles, sub-machine guns, lever action rifles, single action revol...
• In SKS Carbine, can backlink assault rifle: ...heir own Type 56 carbine, and an SKS-derived selective-fire assault rifle, the Type 68/72. ...
• In Afghanistan timeline August 2003, can backlink assault rifles: ...spected Taliban members were captured along with documents, assault rifles, shoulder-held rocket launchers and ammunition....
• In FG42, can backlink Assault Rifle: ...of German arms manufacturers. ==Statistics== *Weapon Type: Assault Rifle...
• In Mikhail Khodorkovsky, can backlink assault rifles: ...and stormed the plane. Several dozen more agents armed with assault rifles and pistols surrounded the jet. ...
• In Harakat ul-Mujahidin, can backlink assault rifles: ...hmir and Doda regions. It uses light and heavy machineguns, assault rifles, mortars, explosives, and rockets. HUM has lost some of its...
• In Weapons of Star Wars, can backlink assault rifles: ...re many variations of blasters; pistols, carbines, cannons, assault rifles and even machine guns<!-- (E webs) [E webs? explanation?] -...
• In History of the Israeli Defence Forces, can backlink assault rifle: ...Israeli made weapons and technologies. The American [[M16]] assault rifle entered service along with the [[Galil]] assult rifle - an ...
• In Lord's Resistance Army, can backlink assault rifles: ... fiasco in the early 1990s and has armed these militia with assault rifles. Some observers fear that the introduction of more weapons ...
• In Galatz, can backlink assult rifle: ... Tzalafim'' - a sniper version of the [[Israel]]i [[Galil]] assult rifle....
• In [[France-Albert Ren%E9#Single-party state and coups d'état|France-Albert René]], can backlink assault rifle: ..., an airport security guard spotted a [[AK-47|Kalashnikov]] assault rifle in their luggage; the discovery launched a gun battle in wh...
• In Wadih el-Hage, can backlink assault rifle: ...ssault [[rifle]]. A man named [[El Sayyid Nosair]] used the assault rifle that El-Hage bought in the 1991 death of [[rabbi]] [[Meir K...
• In Medal of Honor: Frontline, can backlink Assault Rifle: ...ewehr 43]] Sniper Rifle *[[MP40]] Submachine Gun *[[StG44]] Assault Rifle...
• In Operation Bulldog Mammoth, can backlink assault rifles: ...53 additional buildings and seized: more than 220 [[AK-47]] assault rifles, along with a number of machine guns, pistols and other rif...
• In Afghanistan timeline January 2004, can backlink assault rifles: ...imroz province]], [[Afghanistan]], dozens of men armed with assault rifles attacked a police checkpoint, killing four policemen....
• In FN FNC, can backlink assault rifle: ...gn="right" | '''In production:''' | 1979- |} The FNC is an assault rifle designed by [[Fabrique Nationale de Herstal]] in the mid-19...
• In EXpanded MultiPlayer, can backlink assault rifle: ...medium amounts of health and speed. A Tech is armed with an assault rifle, a shotgun capable of spraying napalm as well as regular bu...
• In List of inventions named after people, can backlink assault rifle: ...[Franklin stove]] &ndash; [[Benjamin Franklin]] * [[Galil]] assault rifle &ndash; [[Israel Galili]] ...
• In Pan Am Flight 73, can backlink assault rifles: ...e dressed as Karachi airport security guards and armed with assault rifles, pistols, grenades and plastic explosive belts. At approxim...
• In Terrorism against Israel in 2003, can backlink assault rifles: ... younger sister) were wounded when Palestinians, armed with assault rifles, attacked their car on road no. 6, some few hundreds meters...
• In Terrorist attacks against Israel in 2003, can backlink assault rifles: ...g her younger sister) wounded when Palestinians, armed with assault rifles, attack the car they were travelling in, on road no. 6, som...
• In Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks, can backlink assault rifles: ...onal Airport]] in [[Rome]], [[Italy]], and opened fire with assault rifles and grenades. They killed 16 people and wounded 80 others b...
• In Hirogen, can backlink assault rifles: ...vive. They carry tetryon rifles into combat; these powerful assault rifles utilise a form of energy that Starfleet has so far been una...
• In Barrett Firearms Company, can backlink assault rifle: ...y working on two projects for the military. One is the M468 assault rifle. This is essentially a modification of the M16/AR15 system,...
• In Afghanistan timeline March 2004, can backlink assault rifles: ...Mohammed]] oversaw hundreds of his fighters giving up their assault rifles, machine guns, and rockets to the [[Afghan National Army]]....
• In GIAT Industries, can backlink assault rifle: ...ench]] and foreign [[military]], including: * the [[FAMAS]] assault rifle,...
• In Half-Life 2, can backlink assault rifle: ... well as 3 contact grenades. *'''Pulse Rifle''': A powerful assault rifle, which can launch either a burst of gunfire or a large orb ...
• In Izhmash, can backlink assault rifle: ...ns in its field. It manufactures the famous [[Kalashnikov]] assault rifle, along with a host of other [[Russia]]n arms. Izhmash also ...
• In Personal weapon, can backlink Assault rifles: ...the Kalishnikov [[AK-47]] is the best example of this type. Assault rifles typically will have additional grips to allow fast response...
• In List of eponyms, can backlink assault rifle: ...t of acceleration * [[Israel Galili]] &ndash; the [[Galil]] assault rifle...
• In Afghanistan timeline May 2004, can backlink assault rifles: ...[[Musa Qala]] and opened fire on the government office with assault rifles and heavy machine-guns. Four of the 30 soldiers defending t...
• In Israeli police, can backlink assult rifle: ...ition is authorized by the police. Heavy armaments such as assult rifle, sniper rifles and non-lethal weapon are assigned according...
• In Wassef Ali Hassoun, can backlink assault rifles: ...une 27]], [[2004]], blindfolded and with masked men holding assault rifles and a sword over his head, saying that he had been captured...
• In List of weapons in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, can backlink assault rifle: ...e|Colt M4]] - $5000 at Downtown Ammu-Nation, for the "best" assault rifle. Also found in the bottom of the Vercetti mansion....
• In ZGMF-1017 GINN, can backlink assault rifle: ...tons<br> '''Armament:''' JDP2-MMX22 experimental 27mm armor assault rifle x1, MA-M3 heavy sword x1...
• In Wiesel1 IFV, can backlink assault rifle: ... [[5.56mm caliber|5.56 mm]] and [[7.62 mm caliber|7.62 mm]] assault rifle ammunition....
• In Glossary of WWII German military terms, can backlink assault rifle: ... [[Sturmgeschütz III]]. *[[Sturmgewehr 44|Sturmgewehr]] -- assault rifle...
• In Queen Aiswarya, can backlink assault rifle: ...ing. Her own son wearing military fatigues and wielding an assault rifle and a sub-machine gun murdered her along with nine other me...
• In List of Halo 2 changes, can backlink assault rifle: ...ly possesed and is arguably the new pistol. The role of the assault rifle from the original Halo seems to have gone to the submachine...
• In History of Iraqi insurgency, can backlink assault rifles: ...consisted of small groups of suspected [[guerillas]] firing assault rifles and [[Rocket propelled grenade|rocket-propelled grenades]] ...
• In OMON, can backlink assault rifles: ...ncluding but not limited to the following list: *[[AK-47]] assault rifles...
• In KSK, can backlink assault rifle: ...anguage experts). ==Equipment== *[[Heckler und Koch G36]] assault rifle - special version...
• In In-character, can backlink assault rifle: ... feet into the air and attack an approaching knight with an assault rifle, while talking about what film they were going to see that ...
• In 7.62 x 39 mm M43, can backlink assault rifle: ... German). Shortly after the war the world's most (in)famous assault rifle was designed for this cartridge: the [[AK-47]]. The cartrid...
• In Valmet M78, can backlink assault rifle: ... heavy-barreled light support variant of the [[Valmet M76]] assault rifle. In addition to firing the [[7.62&times;39mm]] Soviet cartd...
• In IMBEL MD2, can backlink assault rifle: ... the IMBEL MD2. The MD2 is now the Brazilian army's primary assault rifle....
• In MAS-49, can backlink assault rifle: ...y's then outdated WW2 rifles. Was the French army's primary assault rifle until the [[FAMAS]] came in 1980. ...
• In Special Purpose Individual Weapon, can backlink assault rifle: ...e SPIW, there has been another attempt to revolutionize the assault rifle by way of a small projectile and a very high rate of fire, ...
• In AK5, can backlink assault rifle: The '''AK5''' is the [[Swedish]] version of the [[FN FNC]] assault rifle, with some minor modifications. It is the standard weapon o...
• In Royal Netherlands Army, can backlink assault rifle: ...onal Weapons=== *[[Glock]] 17 9mm pistol *Diemaco C7 5.56mm assault rifle...
• In Operation Bayonet Lightning, can backlink assault rifles: ...[[Kirkuk]]. Soldiers located and confiscated 62 [[AK-47]] assault rifles, 200 rounds of [[AK-47]] ammunition, one [[rocket propelled...
• In List of weapons in Halo 2, can backlink Assault Rifle: ...  : Slow Scope  : 2x Replacing the MA5B Assault Rifle found in [[Halo: Combat Evolved]], the Battle Rifle was bui...
• In Mobile Suits of Gundam Seed Destiny, can backlink assault rifle: ...e the colors of their units. Its primary armament is a beam assault rifle and a beam axe....

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I took care of the 21 wikilinks. Thanks! :) --ZeroOne 18:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page seems to be in a bit of a state, I plan to overhaul it unless anyone objects. Included will be merging the texts of the individual weapons described with their own pages and removing them from here. Dan100 18:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

There´s not enough attention towards the AK-47. It´s still widely used and is propably the most plagiarized assault rifle in the world. At least it should be added to the "Significant models"-section.

As promised, I've overhauled this article, removing speculation, original research, PoV, irrelevant material and moving excess text to more appropiate pages. Some of what I removed is reproduced below for historic record:

The low training time for US soldiers is often blamed for the known inability of the soldiers to control their fire (US Army basic training is eight weeks, compared with 12 weeks for the Canadian reserve force and 13 for the US Marine Corps.) Also the US focuses mainly on physical soldiering skills, whereas most other modern nations focus more on mental soldier skills ("boot camp" is typically used to describe military basic training, whereas calling the basic training of most other nations "boot camp" is considered a grave insult.)

Some later models of the Russian Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles can reduce the rate of fire below five rounds per second. Although this may aid logistics, lowered logistic loads is said to be a doctrine of secondary importance. The lower rate of fire is to help moderately skilled shooters, while it is said to limit better shooters. Many Russian troops apparently dislike this accessory, because it reduces the rate of fire during the assault, and is less reliable than a simple automatic sear. (This was a copy n past from AK47)

To reduce logistic problems, and still provide high rates of fire, some current military doctrines employ a squad automatic weapon used by one or a few specially-trained soldiers in a squad. The term squad is largely a US term, where the equivalent to a squad automatic weapon is a part of most normal military training. Fully automatic assault rifles can, at a pinch, replace a light machine gun. Another very common method is to have one of the riflemen (the nearest and typically a fireteam partner), pick up the gun of a fallen machinegunner and thence, until proper unit reorg, become a machine gunner himself. Some weapons such as the AK-47, although classified as assault rifles, were designed as light infantry automatic weapons with single-shot capability, rather than rifles with the option of full-automatic fire, such as the M16A1. Therefore, the doctrines associated are often weapon dependent.

The helicopter had become an important, perhaps the primary, means of resupplying embattled troops.

Dan100 12:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for my last edit are listed below in the order I edited, not from top to bottom in the article.

There are multiple assault weapon definitions, none of which (AFAIK) are the one added by Ve3. I added why the two terms are not interchangeable and fixed the reference to 10-round magazines.

• I did not write that definition- it was already in the article. You are wrong anyway, those 5 traits can indeed qualify a rifle as a "assault weapon". Your info that the two terms are not interchangeable was correct, which is why I have now left it. However, it important to mention the 1930s act restricting automatic firearms, which you had removed. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

An assault rifle is by definition not semi-automatic. AFAIK all current definitions of assault weapons refer to semi-automatic firearms. I think specifics on what an assault weapon is should go on pages about them.

• That paragraph already made that clear. I agree though it doesn't need to much detail. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

There is no space in the word "cartridge".

• Good job on finding a typo. I too have corrected some on this page. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

I'm leaving in the M1 info because it "marked first time such a intermediate weapon would massed produced in such large numbers", but it wasn't an assault rifle and that paragraphs really needs cleaning up.

• I don't think its a assault rifle either, but that is not the only reason to include it. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

I changed the definition so it's clear there are others, but I feel selective fire is best where it is. If someone doesn't know what selective fire is, s/he can click on the link and understand the phrase better than if we attempted to re-define it here.

• American Heritage Dictionary defines a AR as: Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat. I personally do not agree that definition exactly, but less technical language should be used. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

The BAR didn't introduce the idea of light automatic rifles, and I don't think I've ever seen it called an assault rifle without that claim being quickly beaten down, so I removed that paragraph.

• First of all, it doesn't say that introduced the idea. Second, it didn't say it was a assault rifle. It was a light automatic rifle used like one for time and its has a much importance as the other weapons that are not always considered assault rifles (such as the italian ones). Ve3

I noticed the AWB link redirected...IMO links should go straight to the destination with no redirecting or disambiguation.68.32.176.48

• I agree here (on AWB);it that was that way (generic link) to begin with and I didn't make it otherwise. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

Your edit was great! Why are you a not-signed-in user?!? Wikipedia will be better for us all if you go create a login, right now! :-) Friday 8 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

Ve3, I liked the previous version better than your edit, so I reverted. I agree with much of what is stated above. A specific disgreement I have with your version is that BAR was a machine gun, not an assault rifle. Friday 9 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

• I do not think the BAR is assault rifle. I included it because the entire first section includes things that are not universally considered assault rifles, but just light automatic rifles. It is a oversimplification to say the bar is a machine gun, really it is only a light machine gun. In WW1 it wasn't even really intended for the LMG role, but to be used for mobile suppressive fire and single aimed shots. It was only later that people used it strictly as a LMG, which is why they added bipods and other features to aid in this job. Ve3 9 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)

There's things I like and dislike about several of the versions. I still think the BAR paragraph seems out of place, but I'm don't wanna get in an edit war. Maybe discussion of the BAR is appropriate talking about the evolution of the assault rifle, but it certainly could flow better. It's nice to have a history section, but almost the whole article is in that section now. I'm not sure I like the "Unrelated terms" section either. There was discussion going on in assault weapon about redirecting here (which certainly is inappropriate IMO). I can't decide though whether I think "unrelated terms" doesn't belong at all, or whether I just don't like it because it's awkward. Friday 9 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

I write too slowly...Friday keeps making my responses pointless by working on the main article! :p One thing that hasn't changed, yet: What was wrong with my revised M1 carbine paragraph?

I'll probably be making some more edits. I hope you'll find them less objectionable now that I have more of an idea where you're coming from. 68.32.176.48 9 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

This article looks WAY better now than it did just a short while ago. Thanks to all recent editors. Friday 01:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Browning Automatic Rifle being used as a squad automatic weapon, but not as an assault rifle, which doesn't even have a particular use. A source for that would be nice.

Also, I'm not so sure about mentioning the M1 Carbine any more...It was really too weak to be an assault rifle, as displayed by the same ammunition being used in the Cristobal submachine gun; and the Japanese had already been using proper assault rifle ammunition as their standard with the 6.5 x 50 Arisaka, although they were replacing it. Thoughts? Ergbert

IMO, .30 Carbine can be considered an intermediate cartridge, although it's definitely on the weak side. Friday 02:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually it would be the M2 carbine because it was the select fire version of the carbine. By definition an M2 would qualify as an ‘assault rifle’ by default, not among the top ten for sure. ak-dave

I agree with your assessment of both the BAR and M1 Carbine. Some discussion is justified in order to compare and contrast with what an assault rifle actually is, but beyond that they don't qualify as assault rifles. solidpoint

Many of us who teach firearms understand that the phrases of "assault rifle," "assault pistol" and "assault weapon" are all lies. In a military tactical sense the idea of an "assault rifle" is unrealistic, assinine and impractical. When a military force wants to launch a REALLY effective assault, they use vehicles like tanks, armored cars and armored personnel carriers coupled with a pre-assault artillery barrage and/or series of airstrikes. I guess that the more accurate and true definition of an assault rifle would be the 120 millimeter rifle (cannon) mounted on M1 Abrahams tank. The first use of "assault rifle" came about as the result of a radical anti-gun nut using the term in front of America's most mentally challenged people: Senate politicians. What happened was that there was a Senate committee that was "investigating" the easy access or proliferation of firearms. Most of the people on the Senate committee were anti-gun senators who were looking for a way or catch-phrase to help further their anti-gun cause. The man who testified in front of the Senate DID TELL THE TRUTH but he did so in a way that was not morally correct. In other words, he DELIBERATELY lied "by omission" to make his cause SEEM more just or right. The man who testified about "assault rifles," particularly the MP-44, tried to link the MP-44 with Adolph Hitler. His attempt was to say that Hitler, an evil man, had referred to the MP-44 as "an assault rifle." The idea was that by linking something, a rifle, to an evil man then people, politicians, could be controlled into believing that the rifle was ALSO A BAD THING. In this idea, the easily led politicians would think that, "Evil man likes this assault rifle so that makes ALL rifles bad." Hopefully, the Senate committe would never stop to think things over or ask experts what was really true. Sadly, this is EXACTLY what happened and the Senators fell for the trick used by anti-gunners.

Here's what REALLY happened with Adolph Hitler and the MP-44. Hitler, a World War One veteran, was AGAINST the MP-44 being developed. Hitler, at the time of World War Two, wanted to use his nation's resources to manufacture those rifles that had ALREADY been developed, such as the Mauser K-98 rifles, because they were tried and true firearms. Hitler did NOT want to expend his nation's time, technology and material, at a time of crisis, on developing more new technology as far as firearms were concerned. With firearms, Hitler thought that the Mauser bolt-action rifle was the best thing to meet the infantry's primary firearms need. When Hitler found out that the MP-44 had been developed AGAINST HIS DESIRES, he was not a happy man. Hitler did, however, listen to his generals for once and looked over the MP-44. Hitler DID refer to the MP-44 as a "sturmgewher" or as a "storm rifle." Where the anti-gunner lied by omission is that he did NOT explain that Hitler's use of the word sturmgewher was ACTUALLY meant in the OPPOSITE MANNER. Hitler was, in his own way, actually calling the MP-44 a rifle to be used AGAINST STORMING (RUSSIAN) SOLDIERS in the east! Another way of saying it was that Hitler actually meant that the MP-44 was an "anti-assault or anti-attack rifle." The actual omission part was that in the German language, like in American slang, words take on the opposite meaning or another meaning. In the USA when somebody says, "That was one BAD pizza." they're actually saying that the pizza was great or really good. The SAME THING applies to the Germanic language. I tend to think that this is one of the reasons that defining an "assault rifle" is such a hard thing to do. Look at all the different LEGAL definitions of what is and is NOT an assault rifle. Until our politicians understand that they need properly define what is and isn't right, our nation will be legislating innocent people into becoming criminals with more and more complex laws. Such is the situation LEGAL gunowners find themselves. Politicians are being lied to and the gunowners become the victims of new laws. One of the most interesting facts is the over 99% of ALL guns have and NEVER will be used to commit crimes. The best way to explain the growth of the assault rifle lie can be summed up in the phrase, "Too much hype being used to spark uncontrolled emotional anger in an unrealistic manner to create new and overzealous laws that victimize innocent people."

The 120mm gun on the M1 Abrams can't be called an assault rifle,because it is a smoothbore. Dudtz 10/15/06 5:45 PM EST

Well, this tangenital rant is half right, but you'd have made a lot more sense if you understood that "assault rifle" is a militarily accepted term with a pretty specific definition, and "assault weapon" is the generic catch-all meaningless phrase used by deceptive gun control advocates who want to scare you. SenorBeef 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know of any good articles on the future plans for soldier carried assault rifles/weapons ? Would make a good add on paragraph to this article. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 20:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

1. I think we should be clearer why the M1 Carbine isn't an assault rifle: (a) design purpose, as defensive weapon for non-combatants and leaders, (b) low power, (c) lack of vertical rear grip, or (d) lack of autofire. I don't know much about (a); equipping paratroopers with the M1A1 implies an assault rifle role. (B) seems nit-picky. The 30 Carbine's muzzle energy is a (weak?) 955 foot-pounds; the Thompson's 45 ACP gives a (powerful?) 405 (from a pistol barrel; don't know about an SMG barrel); assault rifles like the MP 43 / Sturmgewehr did 1408 while the 5.56mm NATOs do 1325, and the AK-74 - which everyone agrees is an assault rife - does 1045. All this compares to the 30-06 with its 2500. Is there an arbitrary 1000 foot-pound cut-off that I'm unaware of? (C) seems superficial and doesn't apply to the M1A1. (D) is correct but doesn't apply to the M2. 2. I thought the B.A.R. was full-auto-only; am I wrong? Or were single aimed shots actually achieved with a really short trigger pull? 3. The "120 millimeter rifle (cannon) mounted on M1 Abrahams tank" is a smoothbore. (On an Abrams.) 4. I'm not convinced that the language in the 1994 assault weapons ban even uses the term "assault rifle" at all. It defines how different weapons - shotgun, rifle, or pistol - could qualify as an "assault weapon". Okay, so the military's idea of an "assault rifle" is very different from the 1994 legal definition of an "assault weapon". Let's not waste our breath talking about one term used in two different ways - it is two terms.

Boris B 07:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

(Apologies for the lack of line-breaks in my above post, and the fact that my sig is in a little box. ? If someone wants to fix that I'd be grateful, since I don't seem to have an Edit option for Talk pages. Will preview in the future.) Does the M16A2 count as an assault rifle, lack, as it does, a full-auto option? Boris B 07:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I did look it up. The term "assault rifle" does not appear in the assault weapons ban (scroll to Title XI). If some anti-gun groups used the term, they should be quoted as such. Boris B 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the 6.5 Grendel assault rifle cartridge at the end of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s: New form factors and features, tactical use, and a changing battlefield section with a few introductory remarks.

I also removed the interesting but irrelavant remark about the factors behind the US adopting the Colt .45 pistol due to problems with the .38 caliber in the Philipines. While interesting, and something that should be included in any discussion of the development of the Colt 45, it seems well off point in a discussion of assault rifles. Running my own stuff through MS Word I took the liberty of correcting a few spelling errors in that section.

In an attempt to preserve the existing date categories and yet not have 21st century developments labeled incorrrectly I added a new category for developments after 12-31-1999. There were two significant developments recently that fall into this new category. The development of the 6.8SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. I hope this will be seen as a needed enhancement to the page. Solidpoint

My open question as to whether the assault rifle will continue to be useful in the face of rapidly improving ballistic protection is appropriate for a discussion of its future and was supplied by Dr Gary Roberts who is one of the members participating in the NIJ tests ongoing as we speak.

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001286;p=1#000000

I don't think an entire section devoted to a discussion of bullet proof vests is appropriate because at that degree of emphisis it beomes off-topic disussion. I hope you will reconsider the creation of a new section and also the use of 3rd party material taken from another web site. Since Dr Roberts is actually part of the NIJ team I think he qualifies as a 1st party source. His posts on tacticalforms were his chosen forum of presentation because he is a moderator and frequent contributor to that site.

I have added back my open question because I feel strongly it is a question that bears directly on the future of the assault rifle.

Solidpoint

Hello, I added a response and reverted your entry before I found and read this entry, so I apologise now. Your original entry had merit, but was uncited and moderately well written, so I rewrote it. I agree with you and I believe body armour will have an impact on assault rifles and the cartridges they use in the future, in fact, they must or risk having a diminishing value. "The future" section should obviously default to the future of assault rifles, but I believe should have subsections for items that will affect it, such as, body armour and cartridges, scopes etc. This framework will allow the growth of the article in a systematic and orderly way. I think having a basic framework for others to plug in information would be the best way to go. Or it has the potential to turn into spaghetti with everything mixed into one section. Thank you 69.156.78.7 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of the potential for body armor to not just diminish, but render obsolete, the intermediate power rounds that characterize assault rifles is needed. I would like to see your wording strengthened accordingly. Weapons do become obsolete. Aircraft made battleships obsolte, tanks made trench warfare obsolete, mechanical warfare made horses obsolete, etc. etc.

I like your submission EXCEPT for the creation of a whole new category in which to showcase the DragonSkin SOV body armor in particular. This smacks of being an advertisement. Also, your citation is sub-standard in that it does not reflect the current state of affairs, it is speculative. The NIJ has not approved DragonSkin and the citation I gave you references DockGKR's up to date detailing of the proceedings so you don't need to speculate, you have links to data less than 36 hours old. (I am a huge fan of DragonSkin btw, and feel they have been badly maligned by the DOD - if you have any doubt of this please read my posts on the 65Grendel.com site - but this is not the place to grind axes. To do so calls into question the objectivity of everything else written on this page. Restraint is respect.)

You want to create categories for each thing that assault rifle are affected by? How about metals to make the cases out of, the mining industry that supplies the metals, polymers to coat them with, the entire plastics industry, trucks to carry them in, airplanes to ship them into theater, etc. etc. etc. The list is potentially nearly endless. Some discretion needs to be used. The current creation of an entirely new category for each and every possible impingement on the assault rifle is an invitation to disaster. The entire focus of the page will be lost.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, since body armor has been dramatically impacted by the desire to protect against assault rifles we could cut and paste the entire Assault Rifle page's content into the body armor page too, but the beauty of hyper-links is you let the reader decide if they want that additional level of detail. Any mention of body armor, beyond noting it has the potential to make assault rifles obsolete, should function primarily as a thumbnail for optional reader investigation.

In short, I would be quite happy if you just removed the new section and then reviewed your revision with an eye to minimizing any bias towards any particular maker of body armor. The actual text is quite good in my opinion. In truth, it will not be DragonSkin that renders the assault rifle obsolete, it will be whatever the other side fields - so the particular brand is not important to the consideration of whether assault rifles will be rendered obsolete or not.

Thank you for considering my request.

Solidpoint

I think u added the name dragon body armour [1] 69.156.78.7 22:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't link it to a page entry with an extended discussion of this commercial product. I mentioned it because it is the current state of the art as ongoing testing to be made public soon will reveal. If you want to have a discussion sign in and get an account. Only a coward hides behind an IP address.

Solidpoint

Somebody needs to get their head around some terms and then go edit the "The Future" section. A bullet is the thing that comes out of the end of the barrel. A cartridge is a piece of brass that just happens to also determine rather precisely the exact dimensions of a combustion chamber which the powder burns in.

In view of this it is clearly wrong to discuss "cartridge ballistics". The cartridge doesn't have ballistics, the bullet does. To be ballistic anything something has to at least move. A cartridge doesn't move except in and out of the chamber. A cartridge can influence internal ballistics and is usually the dominant consideration in internal ballistics, but ballistics is all about what the bullet does. It's the thing moving.

The NATO standard cartridge is also not 5.56, that is the bullet's diameter. The NATO, or one of them, standard cartridge is 5.56x45 where the 45mm is the length of the piece of brass known as the cartridge.

AK-47s ALLWAYS "accept"s ("chamber" is a much better word; "accepts" seems to imply it could reject it. This is nonsense) the 7.62 caliber but only if it is seated in a 7.62x39 Russian cartridge loaded with a 123 grain 7.62 caliber bullet. This combo is usually manifest as an M43 round. All of this is wrong though as the standard Russian rifle is now the AK-74 which fires a 5.45 caliber bullet from a 5.45x39 cartridge. If any of this is confusing to you the please stop “contributing” to this page. It’s a big enough mess already thanks to the help of the ignorant.

The final bit of gibberish in this section is a reference to internal ballistics where armor penetration is concerned. Internal ballistics is all about how powder burns and makes pressure and pushes the bullet out of the barrel. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a bullet is made of tungsten, lead, copper or Velveta cheese. The reference to terminal ballistics is almost as weak as this generally refers to the study of the bullet’s ability to wound and an armor penetrating bullet will not be focused on this. It will be focused on getting through armor so it can do any wounding at all.

I think I’ll give this a week to fix itself and then just delete this superfluous sub-section. The problem with getting off-topic is you end up making a fool or yourself.

Wrong, the cartridge consists of all parts including the bullet, case, gunpowder and primer. It is not one section or the other. 67.71.154.35 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, only someone who buys the ammo someone else loaded thinks a cartridge includes the bullet, primer and powder. If your assumption were correct then given that there are something like 25 different bullets in 6.5 caliber I could create 25 different and distinct cartridges simply by loading the same identical cartridge with different bullets. Only sloppy thinking on the part of K-Mart shoppers allows for nonsense like this. A cartridge is a precisely dimensioned piece of brass which when chambered in a well-defined barrel constitutes a very precise combustion chamber with very precise dimensions and an attendant set of internal ballistic characteristics. Btw, is there some point to signing your "no-name" signature at the end of your post? Since you are too cowardly to abandon the safety of obscurity what's the point of signing?

Solidpoint 10:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The graphic I posted was prepared using Hodgdon pressure-safe load data from their online load tables and BC info from Sierra's website tables. The only round which required judgment was the Chinese 5.8x42 because the BC is not known in the West as far we could determine.

The conclusion that the 6.5 Grendel is THE MOST powerful assault rifle cartridge does not even depend on it carrying its energy better than any other. It is simply an observation that at 2,500 joules it is the most powerful round, period. Now if you weren’t such a lazy sod and actually went and looked up this info, or checked out the very lengthy discussion as to how this information was derived on the 65Grendel.com website you would not resort to blantant vandalism of my post. Or perhaps you are one of these hang-wringing ninnies that can never get comfortable with any statement of an absolute. At any rate, I will revert to my original post and if you vandalize it again you will be reported for your vandalism.

In time FAQs regarding this .jpg will be answered in an annotated .pdf so that the assumptions and estimates will be bound and inseparable from the graphic. In the meantime you can either accept my conclusions or challenge the facts. Anything else is vandalism. Statements of fact are not "unencyclopedic" no matter how reluctant you are to accept that something will always be the best in its class.

Oh, and assault rifles, not ammunition. must maintain a delicate balance between competing factors, such as recoil. Bullets don't have recoil, weapons do. Heavier weapons have less, gas operated weapons have less, and light, bolt operated weapons have more. If you are purporting to be an expert RE: assault rifles nobody should have to explain this to you. Just because you can run a computer doesn't mean you are qualified to "contribute" as an expert on a subject. The fact that I am having to explain this to somebody ought to tip them off that they aren't an expert and should butt out and let people that are write this page. Beyond that I know exactly what was being discussed, assault rifles, not bullets because I wrote that paragraph and I know exactly what was on my mind when writing it. This is hardly a subtle point as a cursory read of the sentence in context should quickly reveal. Therefore, the correct heading is NOT "Ammunition", it is "Summary" as this is a discussion of whether the assault rifle will even have a place as a combat system in the future and what remedies are likely to prevent its obsolescence. It is absolutely NOT a discussion of ammunition, never was and never should be.

Solidpoint 10:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a chunk of text inserted by an anon user - it seemed not to add anything to the article and added a slant that seemed not entirely encyclopedic. However, if anyone else feels it should be there, please feel free to edit the article accordingly. Carom 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this section needed? Possibly a link to separate page instead of getting into this area. It could go on and on with vehicle armor, windshield penetration... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.37.229.206 (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

I've performed a cleanup and culled some junk from the article as well as making some changes to readability and factual corrections. I removed large chunks of speculation and two separate tangetially related discussions of American law and Body armor. These discussions don't belong in this article as they're repeated elsewhere. --Asams10 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems the future section is one big PoV speculation. I think a source or two would be appropriate here. Veritas Panther 04:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article reads, “having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles,” but does not explain why. I couldn’t care less the types that is replaced- I’d be far more interested in the why.

The reasons are laid out in the History section. There isn't room in the lead of the article to explain the reason why the switch was made I think.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the film Black Hawk Down is footnoted as a source (twice). I am not sure if a film is a reliable source for determining the stopping power of a bullet. Thoughts? --Eyrian 22:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a book too, one that's on the reading list at USMA and famous for bringing to light the stopping power issues of the 5.56 greentips. I think it's reliable enough, and Mark Bowden is certainly notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a valid source because it's opinion. Empirical data, possibly involving ballistics gelatin would be valid. Many notable people, mostly politicians, make statements that are patently ridiculous (.50BMG taking down airplane, etc). BHD is on the reading list because it tells an important story, not because the 5.56 round has problems. 140.247.146.103 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....50BMG was used to take down many airplanes in WWII. First hand accounts of observed effect are not opinion.Reginhild 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

.50BMG was used in machine guns to take down low flying planes. I was referring to the popular myth that a single shot from a modern .50 calibre rifle can take down a jetliner. 140.247.146.103 04:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HOWEVER, the wiki article MISQUOTED Bowden's book. The Delta operative he interviewed at no point said his CAR-15 "failed" to "kill" the Somali gunman. He observed mutiple 5.56 hits on target without incapacitation, adding that he was sure that the hits were LETHAL and that the gunmen would "bleed out later" and die. The article's claim that the 5.56mm failed to kill is thus inaccurate and fallacious. Certainly no ammount of drugs can compensate for total blood loss. There are also those who had the patience to sift through the accounts of all of the Rangers interivewed; those who were issued with M16s said that center of mass hits stopped the Somalis cold. It was a velocity problem inherent in the shorter barrel of the CAR-15s used, probably the 11.5 in. varient. -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.65.81 (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Something that could really improve this article is inline citations. I'm not saying it's not cited, I'm just saying the citations are not added into the document with the ref or citeweb tags. The article cannot improve to good article or better without the citations. Want to help me improve it that way? (I'm asking you because the large majority of my time is spent now with my wikiproject and reconnaissance/infantry related articles, and I don't ahve time to do it singlehandedly here. ) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watch list and get to it at another time. This article was pretty trashed and will require some more time... time I don't have right now.--Asams10 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I will have to read this carefully to make specific comments, but in general what has been done so far addresses many of my complaints. Mark Bowden is a reputable author but there are also web-published OIF After-Action reports that cite problems with the 5.56 NATO round. IIRC the 101st Airborne deployed to Iraq with M14s and were very happy they did due to its much greater effective range. The 82nd Airborne used M4s which are virtually useless due to insufficient velocity (citation of Fackler’s work would help a lot on this point) to fragment beyond about 115 yards. The point being there are other sources that could be referenced to point up the deficiencies of the 5.56 platforms.

I was never a fan of the body armor section - except to the extent it was a "thumbnail" to invite the reader to click on a hyperlink so they could better understand the arms race between assault rifles and body armor. Currently the assault rifle is effective as we aren't facing many enemies wearing quality body armor, but this condition can not be presumed to prevail in perpetuity. Body armor will very soon dramatically affect assault rifles, but it is still OT beyond a mention to my way of thinking.

The list of features that were supposed to be required of all future assault rifles was a mess. It was very inconsistent in the level of detail of the various bulleted points and most of those features seemed to be features of existing assault rifles, not features that would make future assault rifles different or superior.

I will have to read the intro to the page again, but some short list of attributes that defines an assault rifle might be useful and THEN a short list of what new technologies are appearing on the scene that might address the challenge of body armor MIGHT be helpful. I think I have covered it pretty well though in the summary paragraph. The USMC has M240's in eval with Ti receivers for example, but that is not an assault rifle technology - yet. There is no mention of electronic primer systems either and these are COTS from Remington as we speak, but not used by any assault rifle I know of. The Israelis have a gun system that is made to shoot around corners and features a hi-rez digital optical targeting system and small LCD screen so the shooter can see and shoot around the corner. If we throw in electronic primers the system immediately gets the ability to be fired by remote control from around the corner, block or world. At some point though this becomes a discussion that is inappropriate to assault rifles and more appropriate to target acquisition systems.

Mostly I wanted to check in as I had a message asking for my help and I wanted to see what had been done. So far I like what I see.

Solidpoint 08:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with M4s has more to do with the short barrel than it does with the round itself: a shorter barrel means lower round velocity. The M4 is totally different in purpose than the M16 - it was pushed through after panama and replaced M3 and a number of handguns. It's a short and small weapon, not a main battle rifle.

Furthermore, according to globalsecurity.org (not sure how to link the article) the M16A1, which is far inferior in terms of the ammunition loads it was used with when compared to the A2 and A3 variants, was "judged far more effective" than the M14 in real combat, and produced twice the casualties.

On the topic of Assault Rifle classifications, I think it would be fair to say that an AR is a select fire weapon chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Something about weight would also likely be necessary, I suppose, and maybe purpose to differentiate from a SAW. 140.247.146.103 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Having carried and used the M16A1, M16A2 and M4 over the course of my career, I would dispute the claims above. The M4 is, in fact, currently issued as a replacement for M16-series rifle in units (Infantry, Military Police, etc) which rely on a rifle or carbine as the individual soldiers' primary weapon.

As for "far inferior" (in reference to the M193 ball round used in the M16A1) this is nonsense. The alleged superiority of the M855 ball round (as used in the M16A2 and M4) is in one effect only: it's ability to make holes in helmets at very long (800+ meters) ranges. Its actual terminal effect, in both ballistic testing media and as observed in combat use, is inferior to that of the older M193. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.56.86.233 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I added this important distinction back to the intro as weapons such as the M1 Carbine did not have full auto capabilities and yet that platform is still considered by many to be an assault rifle. In addition, since US doctrine favors sustained, aimed fire over "spray and pray" it is entirely possible that weapons without full auto (does the M4 have full-auto capability?) capabilities, that are fielded and generally viewed as assault rifles, will return to the scene. Solidpoint 08:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to be a prick about this, but the distinction being made is incorrect. The M1 Carbine is NOT an assault rifle as it lacks the capability for full-automatic fire. The M2 and M3 carbines can be classified as such being selective-fire weapons. Selective fire means that it has BOTH semi- and full-auto modes. Selective fire requires BOTH modes. A semi-automatic only firearm cannot be classified as an assault rifle, but a firearm without the capability for semi-auto fire CAN. Putting the term selective fire in confuses the subject here. Further the M4 Carbine and M16A2 ARE capable of full-automatic fire in bursts. The definition of full-auto is that it fires multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger, even if limited mechanically at some point. Interestingly, one can remove the burst mechanism from the M16A2 (and M4) quite simply and utilize it as an automatic rifle.--Asams10 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the M4 does NOT have a full auto mode, and in spite of your late night rewrite of the entire page on selective-fire, (which has left dozens of pages on assault rifles with internal contradictions btw) your insistence that an assault rifle MUST have a full auto mode is not widely shared by civilian or military shooters. The idea of selective fire is that you can chose between single-shot and some other burst mode, up to and including a full auto mode where the weapon will fire until the trigger is released or ammo is exhausted. I think you are being somewhat obtuse to ignore the persistent rewrites of the intro section and insisting instead that your definition is the correct one. I reached this conclusion after reading reviews of assault rifles for the last few hours and noted that in many cases the authors go out of their way to distinguish between weapons that have 3-5 shot burst modes and those that have full-auto capabilities. I am also almost certain that narrowing the definition of assault rifles to require they have a full auto mode will not stand the test of time as the trend, both in western combat doctrine, and in assault rifles becoming more powerful to deal with longer range requirements and body armor, will be away from full auto fire because more the powerful cartridges that are being contemplated will make full auto fire poorly controlled fire. While in general I don't like the idea of perception being definition, I think in this case what are commonly believed to be assault rifles are excluded by your more narrow definition. I'd like to see some references to support your point of view, or else I am forced to conclude that your definition is in fact just a POV violation. Solidpoint 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint, please don't personally attack me again. You are wrong, but I'm not going to take it up here in a personal manner. Your edits give me the impression you have no idea what the difference between semi-automatic, automatic, burst-fire, and selective fire are. I'll try not to patronize you, but please read the selective fire page for a clearer definition and DO NOT personally attack me again. I am narrowing no definitionis and what I wrote in the selective fire article was true. The article was wrong, and I corrected it. I neither said nor did I imply that an assault rifle could not be limited to burst-modes and, in fact, burst fire is fully-automatic fire. You'll need to do some research before you respond.--Asams10 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... Select fire means there are more than one modes of fire that can be selected between. I mean, even the M1918A2 BAR's with two rates of automatic fire are select fire. About the only "assualt rifle" I can think of without select fire is the non-adopted Walther prototype that competed against the Haenel version that fired automatically from an open bolt, IIRC. The only other exceptions that can reasonably be argued are the Heavy Barreled M16-variants intended for use as SAWs and firing open bolt... Deathbunny 08:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all select-fire weapons are assault rifles, but all assault rifles are select-fire weapons. SenorBeef 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

SenorBeef is correct. All assault rifles in use and being considered for use are select-fire. Selection is between single semi-auto fire and another fire rate (or two). There are two round burst, three round burst, and full auto alternative ROF that I know of with assault rifles. (the converse is not true - while all assault rifles are select-fire there are select-fire weapons that are not assault rifles...just like both revolvers and auto-pistols both require barrels but having a barrel does not make a pistol a revolver)Reginhild 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning a statement above: Burst fire is not solely fully-automatic fire. You can fire controlled bursts from a fully automatic weapon or you can fire bursts from a burst limited fire weapon. The US Military made a big distinction when they went from fully auto to burst selection with their assault rifles.Reginhild 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't one of the defining characteristics of an assault rifle is that it has a pistol grip? Also, isn't .30 Carbine a pistol cartridge? These two things should exclude the M2/M3 Carbine from being an assault rifle. automatic carbine is probably the correct category (remember, an assault rifle is a specific design of automatic rifle. all assault rifles are automatic rifles. but not all automatic rifles are assault rifles). The same goes for the so-called pre-sturmgewehr 44 "assault rifles" like the cei-rigotti (not sure of the spelling). They don't have pistol grips. --Philip Laurence (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, a pistol grip is not one of the defining characteristics of an assault rifle. Glad we got that cleared up. cacophony ◄► 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's a bit ridiculous to use the movie Black Hawk Down as a source for claiming that 5.56 doesn't have the stopping power of 7.62. It's definitely not NPOV -- using specious sources and trying to use wikipedia as a platform to advance a position would be the opposite of neutral. Please remember that both bullets are very small, much smaller than a perosn. They can't knock someone over - the rounds just don't have the momentum to do so. The wound channels created by the bullets hitting flesh might put someone into shock, which would lead to them falling over, but otherwise the concept of stopping power is just mythical. Shot placement is really what matters if you're looking to take someone down - destroying the brain or otherwise damaging CNS, or causing massive trauma to the chest are the only ways. Having a slightly larger round matters far less than where that round is placed, and movie commandos are not a valid source. If you have real sources regarding 5.56 and a higher incidence of failure to take down enemies than 7.62, then you should cite them. Otherwise, I think that section should be redacted at the very minimum to fit in with Wikipedia standards. 140.247.146.103 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

308 win (7.62 NATO) loaded with 168gr bullets will put out somewhere between 2500 and 2700 ft/lbs. a 5.56 round with a 62gr bullet at 3100 fps puts out just 1323 ft/lbs. also, beyond 200m there have been lots of field reports and independent tests showing that the 5.56 doesnt fragment at all, or fragments far less. while civilian ammo in this round (basically .223) has combated this to some extent with bullets especially designed to fragment and/or mushroom (ie the nosler ballistic tips and similar), military ball ammo (FMJ) has no such bullets (iirc this is governed by the Geneva convention). now let me address your second statement, that they couldnt knock something down. did you take physics? a foot pound is a unit of work, ie force times distance. one foot pound means the work required to move one pound one foot. thus a bullet with 2500 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle could theoretically move a 2.25 ton block 1 foot across a frictionless surface (assuming an inelastic collision). if you dont think that knocks a person down... well go shoot a tub of ballistic gel or something i guess. (one ballistic table here [2] ). on the other hand, i certainly agree with you on movies being a bad source, but the basic argument is true. Qleem 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you understand that Mark Bowden was an actual soldier and the book Black Hawk Down gives his actual accounts of combat. Black Hawk Down was discussed earlier and is a credible source that cannot be ignored. A soldier's first hand account of effects observed in combat (note this is not considered opinion) is more credible than any other ideas one might have without actual first hand evidence. Shot placement does also matter and one should feel free to cite first hand accounts. Here is some interesting reading: SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03 It discusses "The Operational Suitability, Lethality, and Maintainability and Reliability of weapons, ammunition and weapon accessories while conducting operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom." Look at Section I.b.M16 Rifle Ammunition Issue#3 Lethality. Another interesting source is to look at police databases on one stop shot percentages by type of ammunition. Reginhild 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark bowden is not a solider and he was not in mogodishu he not a documenteryer(i have no idea what the offical word is) he is a journolist and he tells the book as if he was a journalist and as if he was there when in relaity he was not. but still he is a relible source(ForeverDEAD 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

The wiki article MISQUOTED Bowden's book. The Delta operative he interviewed at no point said his CAR-15 "failed" to "kill" the Somali gunman. He observed mutiple 5.56 hits on target without incapacitation, adding that he was sure that the hits were LETHAL and that the gunmen would "bleed out later" and die. The article's claim that the 5.56mm failed to kill is thus inaccurate and fallacious. Certainly no ammount of drugs can compensate for total blood loss. There are also those who had the patience to sift through the accounts of all of the Rangers interivewed; those who were issued with M16s said that center of mass hits stopped the Somalis cold. It was a velocity problem inherent in the shorter barrel of the CAR-15s used, probably the 11.5 in. varient. -Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.65.81 (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the online Philly Inquirer story and not the book, but I agree about the Delta and his 5.56mm. In fact, the only instance I remember in the online version about lethality was a M60 gunner having to use multiple bursts to down an old Somali gunman. In other words, a 7.62 NATO round. Go figure.Mytg8 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a case of anecdotal evidence.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems too long to me, cluttered with information on other types of weapons and on particular weapons. Would anyone be opposed to severely cutting down the article, taking out perhaps more than half of the history and future sections? Ergbert 05:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): BuddingJournalist Proofreader: Sigma 7 13:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no universally agreed upon definition of assault rifles; the respected authors Maxim Popenker and Anthony G. Williams, for example, do not use the definition that was added to the article, and consider the Cei Rigotti and Fedorov Avtomat to be assault rifles. Two of the sources provided were at least in part by the same person, and the third, if it provides exactly the same definition, probably just copied on of the others, or vice versa; it's really the same as if I were to provide the book Assault Rifle by Popenker and Williams, as well as their separate websites, in an attempt to show consensus where there is none. Ergbert 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Popenker and Williams are indeed not the only ones who use sloppy terminology in describing any shoulder fired self-loading gun an assault rifle. The cited sources are only those who enumerate the cited characteristics of assault rifles compared to those of battle rifles and automatic rifles. There is no point in boasting a listing of hundreds of books and magazine articles I personally red over the last 30 years in different languages. There is definitely a consensus in literature about a narrow definition of what an assault rifle is, and what it sets apart from other types of firearms like battle rifles. And indeed, there is a lot of sloppy use in terminology, but this should not brand mark a correct definition as “disputed”. --Dutchguy 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that Maxim Popenker and Anthony G. Williams are not very good sources of information. While they have churned out volumes of articles on the subject of Small Arms. I have found their work sloppy and some of their personal associates questionable. As for the definition in the article it seems to be a combination of the US Army definition and the political definition.Paulwharton 03:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The US Army does not use the term Assault Rifle in regard to its own weapons. The M16 series is simple a rifle; the M4 series is simply a carbine. The supposed source for the "Official" US Army definition is merely one man's opinion wedged in an article concerning foreign weapons. No US Army manual or doctrinal publication applies the term "Assault Rifle" to US weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.73.244 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is bullshit, since the premise in the opening line is POV. There is no provable consensus, no technical agreement on any term, and who cares what an editor personally thinks is a "very good source of information" or not. No credibility whatsoever to any article pursued fallaciously from the git-go. This "article" is opinion, pure and simple.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should be removed as this artical is about the assault rifle as a whole not just a specific country. That section is more gun politics then actualy about the weapons itself. (ForeverDEAD 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

I think a section describing the differences between the two similar sounding concepts is useful, it clears up any confusion. --Sus scrofa 11:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sturmgewehr coined by Hitler? Really? by him personally - a politician, former corporal who fancied himself as a great Napoleonesque general but whose country's military success (atleast early in the war) was due to the Wehrmacht officers? Could they military strategists and leaders have coined it? Sounds very similar to Sturmmann (stormtrooper), and even if a source were found what is to say that the gobshite Goebbels lauded the credit upon the Dear Leader for his usual nefarious propaganda purposes? Andy Fisher-Scott (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hitler insisted upon having a personal say in weapons procurement. He had opposed procurement of the StG44, until witnessing a demonstration where he called it a "sturmgewehr". Numerous sources back this up in this case. The first to come to mind is Military Small Arms of the 20th Century by Ian Hogg.--LWF (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we also include the different variations manufactured by the Indian Ordinance Board. Like the INSAS and Kalantak?Shovon 19:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of this section of the article says that the Russians favored a smaller round, but the standard Russian rifle continued to use a 7.62 round while the US changed to .556. To what does this paragraph refer?--71.80.74.17 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Smaller than its full length, non assault rifle predecessor, the Russian 7.62x54mm, and, by corollary, the then-contemporary NATO 7.62x51mm, at least as I read it. Granted, it does seem a bit confusing to the average reader. 137.244.215.61 (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a different note, I added some material (in some cases, reverted some material) regarding McNamara and the "wounding better than killing" battlefield efficiency theory. It had been removed by an overly happy previous anon editor without regard for affecting flow of the preceeding and following paragraphs, and instead declared it an urban myth in a very POV manner. As it happens, its not a myth, there was such a theory promoted, and is cited in a published work (citation added), as well as being discussed by Eugene Stoner himself during a 1996 interview with The History Channel (for the series 'Tales of the Gun').137.244.215.61 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

there is no universal definition of an assault rifle, so how can this article be NPOV? this article refers to automatic rifles predating ww1 as assault rifles but not the hkg3 which was based off the stg45? lets reaassess this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.243.200 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC) The G3 is disincluded because it fires a full- power rifle round, (7.62 NATO 7.92 Mauser 30-06 etc.) and is therefore not conrollable in automatic fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.163.20 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i think we should list all assault rifle pages as automatic rifles since assault rifle is aPOV term used by politicians and certain gun writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.243.200 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is the most B.S i have ever heard. The term "Assault Weapon" is used by poloticions. Assault rifle is a universal term that refears to these rifles. Besides there is quite a differnce between a Assault rifle(G36 and Automatic rifle(Browning Automatic Rifle) БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "Assault" is what is confusing the ignorant here. It does not mean "Assault" as in "assault and battery", rather it is used as a synonym for storming or assaulting an objecive. The level of ignorance of this basic fact on both sides of the argument is tedious and comical at times. The media assume that it means to hurt and kill... well, yeah it does... it's a FIREARM, DUH! It is a tool for hurting and killing. That is its function. That is its design. The media tend to get all up in arms over the fact that anybody is ever hurt or dies. EVERYBODY dies, that is a basic fact of our existance. Some people just deserve to die more than others. Of course, it is the soldier, citizen, cop, or bad guy who kill, not the weapon itself. There isn't any F#$%ing point of view on assault rifles, they are a reality and a descriptive term. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference to "8" yellow internet press article is way unprofessional. What's next? Armed space aliens? While AK uses Stg-44 sights idea, it's a completely different firearm. Just close the front sights with your hand on the picture and you will see it yourself. The whole article in life.ru is just another "assault pump-action shotgun with evil pistol grip" media stupidity. Zero facts and knowledge. The question mark in the topic should be a big hint to you already that the article is a junk "science." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.88.207 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was me who added the (8) reference, and I agree that the site itself is not too credible; but this reference applies only to the section where Hugo Schmeisser's contribution is described - which is minimal (cold stamping technique), and the claims that the AK47 is a "rip-off" are opposed. The citation itself comes from a local historian from Izhevsk. It's very likely that he has a first-hand knowledge of the issue, and he doesn't make any far-fetched claims. More than that, he just describes when and where the AK was developed, and when and how Hugo Schmeisser helped with the project. He, as well as the journalist interviewing him, doesn't make any statements in the spirit of the "holy war" about AK originality, and thank God he doesn't. The sections that surround my contribution - they do hint at the "rip-off" issue, but I thought it's conter-productive to just delete them, and left all the paragraph to the editors. AyeBraine (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays, in German you would write words like Infanterie Kurz Patrone in one word: Infanteriekurzpatrone or at least hiphenated: Infanterie-Kurzpatrone. But I don't know how they spelled it back then - are there reliable sources? FAThomssen (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An anon has recently decided that it wants a picture of an M-16 and not an AK-47 in the lede. In the process, it removed some cleanup work and tagging in the introduction. This should be reverted; the AK-47 is a more global symbol, as well as being the most common assault rifle design in the world, and obviously the cleanup work should stand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Ak-47 belongs on top since it's the most common in the world with 100 million made versus the M16 with 8 million made.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

is it just me, or does the paragraph which describes the M16's development from the M14 seem a bit storybookish and somewhat untrue, since the M14 and M16 were developed separately? Ansh666 (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can assault someone with a semi-auto rifle, so I personally thought of the term "Assault Rifles" as inaccurate and unscientific. I've also heard that the term was created in the 90's to shine bad light on automatic weapons. While that rumor has yet to be verified, I think the term "Assault Rifle" should redirect to this page and the page name should be changed to "Auto-Rifles", since that would make more sense to me. -Manic Tiger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.194.193 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, etymology doesn't determine meaning. For example, a "lesbian" isn't a Greek person from the island of Lesbos. A cursory search on google books shows that the term was in use as early as 1967: [3] and not as a propaganda term either. You might be thinking about the term "assault weapon" which I believe came into prominence in the 90s.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not confuse the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon". The latter was indeed an intentionally sloppy politically motivated term with little or no technical relevance, solely intended to be able to include a maximum of firearm types in the intended ban on firearms in the United States.
The weapon type that was coined "assault rifle" was the result of a deliberate development concept, and can be clearly defined. As stated, the term "assault rifle" is a straight translation from the German word "Sturmgewehr". This term is still used in German to cover the original definition, as it is in French with "fusil d'assaut" and in Dutch "stormgeweer". A slang word like "autorifle" is too broad, and could cover several arms types other than assault rifles, including selective fire battle rifles, automatic rifles like the Browning BAR, SAW's and light machineguns.--Dutchguy (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been repeated insertion of this image in this article under the 1970s–1990s: Development of features and form factors section[4], often replacing the high quality image of the FX-05 Xiuhcoatl. These edits are being made by a user(s?) that, at the very least, has an extremely pro India POV. A look at the accounts contributions[5][6] will show the questionable edits.

At any rate, I don't believe the image of the INSAS needs to be in this already crammed full section. Its not a particularly notable design, compared to the other rifles in this section. — DanMP5 15:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that either the INSAS or the FX-05 needs to be illustrated by an image in this article. Neither are mentioned in the text, and to my no knowledge neither are particularly innovative weapons that need a mention in a general article about assault rifles. Possibly some of the other images in the section can go to.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sus Scrofa. Neither of the two are particularly noteworthy and neither really belong on this page. The FX-05 being a clone of the G36, and the INSAS, an amalgamation of several other legacy designs (FAL, AK). Koalorka (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article omits one requirement or characteristic which assault rifles must meet.

Assault rifles must be designed for carbine mode firing, i.e. a cartridge must be in the chamber, and the action must be in forward position before the trigger is pulled.

Where this requirement is fulfilled, the assault rifle is qualified for use by snipers as the trigger will cause only minor movements in the gun before the shot is fired. In its forward position, the action will also block the opening where spent shells are ejected and protect the rifle's inside from being soiled and jammed by dirt which might intrude through the opening.

As far as I know, all assault rifles ever designed have exhibited this feature while all older types of submachine or machine guns had their actions in hindmost position in the ready-to-fire mode.

Being unable to cite sources of authority, I have refrained from including this contribution in the article. Will anyone please provide a competent source?

--84.163.199.138 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The caption of the photo of the AK-47 rifle states that it was adopted in 1949. This rifle was actually adopted in 1947, thus its designation; AK-47 means Automat Kalashnikov model of 1947.204.13.113.209 (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a mistake, and a very common one. The weapon was adopted in 1949, and -47 was just a (probably unofficial) designation of 1947-built prototype (more or less identical to first serial production model, but still a prototype). The name "AK-47" is undoubtly of Western origin, and was never (!) used it the USSR / Russia untill maybe 1990's when the Hollywood production came en masse. In ANY official military document is was just - AK, without any numbers. Please do not ask me why, cause I don't know. Before the AK, official designations with numbers really were used. The next, "modernised", model was the AKM, again - without numbers, adopted 10 years later in 1959. The AK74 was the first mass produced AK-family weapon to have numbers in the designation. 95.79.192.115 (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have stumbled across the pages for the [AEK-971] and [AN-94], and I was rather intrigued by the subject matter. The AEK incorporates a counterweight to control recoil, while the AN uses a, and I quote from the Wikipedia page, "blowback shifted pulse" system. These seem to be relatively interesting examples to the 21st century category, as they represent systems of increasing a soldier's efficiency by reducing or delaying recoil. My question is whether there are other assault rifles like the AEK and AN that attempt to alter recoil? Is such a category worth adding to the 21st Century Developments section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercenary90 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, from my POV neither the AEK nor the AN can be called anything like "21st Century Developments" at least because both were essentially developed back in the 1970-s... the AN was in development since early 1970 or even late 1960s, and Avtomat Alexandrova - basis for the AEK - was developed even before AK74 was adopted. And concerning the second question, for example the G11 used the same basic principle the AN employes, the difference is that the AN can fire only 2 bullets without substantional recoil, and the G11 - 3 bullets (but it's a prototype weapon never officially adopted, you know, and it had its magazine moving while shooting, what may be unpractical, while the AN has 2 magazines - one (main) does not move while shooting, and the second ("intermediate") moves with recoiling barell-bolt-reciever group). 95.79.235.190 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Assault Rifle" under the "External Links" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

The site is located at: www.TacticalGearNews.com

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

3/4 of the entries on your main page aren't rifle-related at all. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article states that The AK-47 was first adopted in 1949 by the Soviet Union Red Army. The yeas is correct, but the designation (-47) is not - and also since 1946 the Red Army was renamed and became the Soviet Army. Just look at the article. 95.79.192.115 (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

is it me, or does this sound rather incorrect: "The AK-47 was first adopted in 1944 by Nazi Germany. It fires the 7.62x39mm M43 round." Now, im guessing that should be changed, yes? HeatedPete 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called vandalism, and you are encouraged to take the initiative to revert such changes. —Darxus (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Civilian M4's/AR-15's are NOT select fire, yet on Wikipedia, in their individual pages (and in the rest of the world), they are called "assault rifles." They are defined by the U.S. Government, and various state governments as assault rifles as well. Please remove the erroneous first sentence that proclaims, incorrectly, that select fire is a requirement to be an assault rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.10.237 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Then go fix it if you're so adamant in your belief. Dr. Whooves (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian classification of weapons AK-47 - is a prototype of assault rifle. In Russian, this asault rifle is called "AK". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.26.30.32 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The AK-47 name is common in English language sources, so it doesn't matter much what it's named in Russia for the English wikipedia.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The article from Russian Wikipedia states detailed report about AK-47 and STG-44 [on the establishment of a Kalashnikov in Russian] Maybe it's need to verify and correct historical notes. (added 21:31, 8 March 2012‎ by User:188.244.42.2}

Few guns the media and public call assault rifles/weapons are. A semi-automatic 22 can be made to look like a military weapon ( scary but far from an assault gun - heck a single shot 22 can be made scary enough looking to have half of the people in America to faith ). The word assault in the media should be chsnged to "scary". 159.105.80.204 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The m16 was a great gun — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.188.31 (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC) This isn't a forum. 71.56.87.71 (talk)

Amerigo Cei-Rigotti developed a rifle between 1890 and 1900 with the characteristics of an assault rifle including selective fire rates and a 6.5×52mm Mannlicher-Carcano medium-power cartridge. Issued in 1905, the rifle was tested but did not see service.

Fedorov Avtomat was "revolutionary" cartridge first. Cartridge - reduced power. Arisaka cartridge for Russian - also reduced power. 109.126.228.248 (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)covrovetz

AK-47 and StG44 are used as examples of Assault Rifles. They both fails the definition by not using intermediate-power cartridge and being Battle rifles (same thing really). Where am I confused? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.189.5 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Both the 7.92×33mm Kurz (StG 44) and the 7.62×39mm (AK-47) have intermediate power compared to pistol cartridges (e.g. 9mm P) and rifle cartridges (e.g. 7.92×57mm Mauser). Modern day assault rifles use even smaller cartridges that form their own sub-category of intermediate cartridges (small caliber/high velocity, e.g. 5.56mm Nato) but they are still in the same class of cartridges (about the same effective range, recoil etc.). Trying to find the meaning of words through etymology can be confusing, as in a strict sense the 5.56mm Nato is "intermediate" between the 7.62×39mm and a pistol cartridge, however the sources we use generally do not use this definition so we shouldn't either.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I hold that the German term "Sturmgewehr" was mis-translated as "assault rifle", because the German noun Sturm is not associated with storming something in the English sense. Unless it is very modern usage, there is no German verb, "sturmen". The German verb conveying that sense is "angreifen". The German Sturmgewehr is intended to convey a storm of bullets as in the English "a hail of fire." Stan Barnett, Mocksville, NC. 66.226.45.185 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be that the word "Sturm" wasn't used to mean "(military) assault" at the time but both Google translate and http://www.leo.org/ (online German dictionary) lists "assault" as one possible translation of "Sturm". Google translate lists "assault" as one possible (but unusual) translation of "Sturm", with "Angriff" and "Überfall" as synonyms to "Sturm" in the sense of the English word "assault". LEO gives one usage of "Sturm" as a verb as "to take so./sth. by assault" which translates to "jmdn./etw. im Sturm erobern". I don't know German grammar, so I don't know if "Sturm" can ever be rendered as "Sturmen", but it seems that (at least nowadays) "Sturm" can mean "assault"/"attack" etc. I do know that during World War I, the Germans used the term "Sturmtruppen" which the Wikipedia article describes as "assault" or "shock troops", so it seems to me that "storm" can be used in the same way in the German and English language. It would help if you can give a source that shows that "Sturm" wasn't used in this sense during World War II.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes stürmen or erstürmen are German verbs. The first can be used in a literal sense. "Es stürmt." refers to the weather, meanig there is a storm going on. Stürmen also signifies to assault in military sense, with a bit of a connotation of success. When the term erstürmen is used it definetly refers to an sucessfull assault. Of course these verbs can also be used outside of their military context, example: "Nach dem Spiel stürmten die Fans das Spielfeld."

141.70.3.84 (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I really think the hatnote needs to explicitly say that the thing that is sometimes banned or restricted by gun control laws is an assault weapon, not an assault rifle. Otherwise some of our readers will get even more confused than they are already. That is, if the hatnote just says that assault rifles are not to be confused with assault weapons, and then goes on to say that assault rifles are selective fire military firearms that often are capable of full-automatic fire, then some readers will think that laws that ban or limit assault weapons restrict full-automatic firearms, when, of course, they restrict semi-automatic firearms. Somehow the hatnote should point this out, while still being very brief. Something along the lines of, "For the firearms restricted by some current, proposed, or former laws in the United States, see assault weapon". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My thinking was that to be informative we should prominently say that this is a different term than "assault weapon" because these two terms are very commonly confused, and possibly point out that common confusion. Right now it's not in the hatnote or the lead. I think that the "not to be confused with" wording is very good for accomplishing this / those. Alternatively a mention in the lead would be second best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning it in the lead section too sounds like a good idea. But I think it's much better to have a hatnote that states that the firearms restricted by some laws are assault weapons, not assault rifles, rather than just saying that they're not to be confused. I would only half-joking add that it's too late for that -- they're already confused! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was sort of saying that the common meaning of "not to be confused with" actually means "is often confused with, and they are not the same thing". It also seems a shame to waste that spot on a term which is seldom used much less confused: "assault gun" which is basically a cannon. But a note in the lead would be almost as good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Chauchat was introduced, a light machine gun and a precursor to the modern assault rifle." In what way was the Chauchat (A recoil operated full power automatic rifle) a predecessor to the assault rifle? It is my opinion that this was added to give this weapon some significance it doesn't have. By the same merit the section about the BAR should be removed, particularly this part. "The American M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) copied the Chauchat concept in a more reliable design but was not introduced or used in any significant numbers before the end of the First World War." As light machine gun predecessors, these weapons do not belong on the assault rifle page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.163.20 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Chauchat introduced the concept of a weapon that provided mobile automatic fire, it could be used as a rifle in a pinch (the French named them "machine rifles" and the Americans called them "automatic rifles" not machine guns). The French deployed their Chauchat more as rifles, they deployed assault teams that had an equal mix of Chauchats and rifle grenades. Before the Chauchat, machine guns were semi-static weapons that could not move with the troops. The Chauchat is similar to a assault rifle in many ways (and the French even considered developing an intermediate cartridge to it), the main difference is the use of a "full" power cartridge. It is logically possible for the Chauchat and the BAR to be predecessors to both light machine guns and assault rifle.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said except for this "introduced the concept of a weapon that provided mobile automatic fire"; that concept had already been introduced by the Federov Avtomat and the italian Cei-Rigotti, and both named weapons fired lower powered rounds (still not quite intermediate). I agree these are predecessors to modern light machine guns, but i think that the Chauchat (along with the BAR) represent France and the United States recognizing and developing that concept for themselves, furthermore they represent part of the parallel evolution of light machine guns, that is to say as early belt- fed weapons were too heavy to be effectively mobile (e.g. Lewis gun) these automatic rifles were developed to fill in the gap, not to be generally issued to all troops (as assault rifles are currently) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.163.20 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This definition is confusing to me:

An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.

The term burst-capable is undefined. The Encyclopedia Brittanica definition you refer to seems to imply that both automatic and semiautomatic rifles can be considered assault rifles, and that is consistent with dictionary usage and gun publication usage that I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have added text necessary to clear up the confusion among the various technical terms (fully automatic, burst capable, and semi-automatic.) Hope this helps. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Burst mode" might be a better description? Anyway, weapons capable of burst mode fire a set number of rounds per trigger pull when set to burst mode (e.g. three for the M16A4) and I think the Encyclopedia Britannica just counts burst mode as another form of automatic fire. Most assault rifles that have burst modes also have fully automatic modes (rounds are fired as long as the trigger is held down). The US changed their M16s from the trigger group safe-semi-auto to safe-semi-burst (M16A2) after experiences in the Vietnam War, the thinking was that surprised or panicked soldiers would hold down the trigger and empty their magazines prematurely, but IIRC the M16A2/M16A4 are still assault rifles as the burst mode enables the rifle of approximately the same rate of fire as a fully rifle you just have to keep pumping the trigger.--Sus scrofa (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault rifle is an outdated term. The only reason it pops up is because the anti gun crowd believes the term will scare people. The military doesn't call any of their rifles assault rifles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numkie (talk • contribs) 03:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)