What is an "Arsenal"

[zimm]

Sure it is. If it is produced for the military and goes bang more than once with each trigger pull it could be an assault weapon. Civilian versions meant for hunting hogs and plinking are the "sporting" rifles. AR-15s are not produced for military purposes.

the NRA aint gonna like you, defining ****. gotta define it before you can ban it. plenty of AR 15s have LE stamped on em and a roll stamp doesnt delineate **** when a difference doesnt make a distinction.

you just went down the slippery slope!

thats why only certain people in the NRA can speak for the NRA. no slippin' from the line, fella!

lets try it again.... "there is no such thing as an assault weapon"

 

[2025 deleted member]

No problemo. I'm not a NRA member, and as a rule I don't donate to politicians. I have to edit that, I would donate to your 2020 presidential campaign, and I'm not from Russia.

 

[zb39]

i thought assault weapon, wasnt a real definable term.

Actually it is. A selective fire rifle (IE capable of semi and automatic fire) firing a medium range rifle round. A M16 or variant is a assult weapon. NO semi rifle is an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

 

[Dalko43]

Actually it is. A selective fire rifle (IE capable of semi and automatic fire) firing a medium range rifle round. A M16 or variant is a assult weapon. NO semi rifle is an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

You can go pull up any number of doctrinal military pubs, you will not find a reference to an "assault weapon."

There are rifles, carbines, machineguns, sniper rifles, crewserved weapons to name a few; no one who has spent time serving refers to a rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) as an "assault weapon." It's a name that has been popularized by media personalities and politicians.

 

[Ray_G]

You can go pull up any number of doctrinal military pubs, you will not find a reference to an "assault weapon."

There are rifles, carbines, machineguns, sniper rifles, crewserved weapons to name a few; no one who has spent time serving refers to a rifle (semi-auto or otherwise) as an "assault weapon." It's a name that has been popularized by media personalities and politicians.

While it doesn't live in doctrine, for good reason, I have spent time throughout my service talking about assault rifles (never really assault weapon) but mostly in a historical context-i.e. how the StG 44 really provided infantry with characteristics desirable for close in work but somewhat adequate for general purpose taskings. As opposed to struggles had during WWI with trench clearing when the primary infantry weapon was a bolt action rifle, or even into WWII where SMGs were useful when close but useless during standoff.

Semantics of course, but the debate does continue today in terms of the appropriate mixture of M4's vs M16's (in a simplistic sense, as a Marine I could dive deeper and weave in the debate about M249 employment, the M27, etc-but the point is that the purpose of an 'assault rifle' from a military perspective is valid enough, but term is heavily laden with baggage as this thread illustrates).
r-
R

 

[Dalko43]

While it doesn't live in doctrine, for good reason, I have spent time throughout my service talking about assault rifles (never really assault weapon) but mostly in a historical context-i.e. how the StG 44 really provided infantry with characteristics desirable for close in work but somewhat adequate for general purpose taskings. As opposed to struggles had during WWI with trench clearing when the primary infantry weapon was a bolt action rifle, or even into WWII where SMGs were useful when close but useless during standoff.

Semantics of course, but the debate does continue today in terms of the appropriate mixture of M4's vs M16's (in a simplistic sense, as a Marine I could dive deeper and weave in the debate about M249 employment, the M27, etc-but the point is that the purpose of an 'assault rifle' from a military perspective is valid enough, but term is heavily laden with baggage as this thread illustrates).
r-
R

I was a Marine too. I set up and ran plenty of combine arms live fire exercises and led training on a variety of weapons platforms (M249's, SMAW's, 60mm's, M240's, to name a few). The only T/O assigned weapon that even has "assault" in its name is the SMAW, and that's a rocket launcher. We never referred to a firearm, automatic or burst, as an assault weapon.

M249's and the like are machineguns (which is another term that gets inaccurately used in modern gun discussions) and were used to provide support by fire by infantry maneuvers. We referred to them as automatic weapons or crew served weapons, depending on the variant. M4's and M16's are referred to as carbines or rifles, depending on the barrel length. No one in the service (at least in the combat arms units) actually uses the term "assault weapon."

The early automatic infantry weapons of WWI and WWII (like the STG 44) were informally referred to as assault weapons due to how they were employed. Nowadays, "assault" is more indicative of a tactical task and has little to do with the types of weapons that are employed for such tasks.

The modern day usage of "assault" has nothing to do with military culture or jargon; it's purely a product of politics. Similarly, it's a false perception that AR-15 (derived from the M4 and M16) are the only modern "military" weapons in civilian ownership. The pump-action shotgun used for duck hunting and the bolt action Remington 700 used for deer hunting have just as much "military" DNA as does the AR-15.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Actually it is. A selective fire rifle (IE capable of semi and automatic fire) firing a medium range rifle round. A M16 or variant is a assult weapon. NO semi rifle is an assault weapon because it does not meet the definition.

That’s not what an “assault rifle” is. What you described is a machine gun.

 

[toylandcruiser]

I was a Marine too. I set up and ran plenty of combine arms live fire exercises and led training on a variety of weapons platforms (M249's, SMAW's, 60mm's, M240's, to name a few). The only T/O assigned weapon that even has "assault" in its name is the SMAW, and that's a rocket launcher. We never referred to a firearm, automatic or burst, as an assault weapon.

M249's and the like are machineguns (which is another term that gets inaccurately used in modern gun discussions) and were used to provide support by fire by infantry maneuvers. We referred to them as automatic weapons or crew served weapons, depending on the variant. M4's and M16's are referred to as carbines or rifles, depending on the barrel length. No one in the service (at least in the combat arms units) actually uses the term "assault weapon."

The early automatic infantry weapons of WWI and WWII (like the STG 44) were informally referred to as assault weapons due to how they were employed. Nowadays, "assault" is more indicative of a tactical task and has little to do with the types of weapons that are employed for such tasks.

The modern day usage of "assault" has nothing to do with military culture or jargon; it's purely a product of politics. Similarly, it's a false perception that AR-15 (derived from the M4 and M16) are the only modern "military" weapons in civilian ownership. The pump-action shotgun used for duck hunting and the bolt action Remington 700 used for deer hunting have just as much "military" DNA as does the AR-15.

Was going to say the same thing. Assault rifle is not a military term

 

[Ray_G]

So everytime I try to type out the definition of assault rife from the US Army the post doesn't seem to want to go through. Decidedly odd.

Bottomline is the US Army has a definition of the term, so it is very much a military term (albeit one mostly focused on threat weapons like the AK series, and out of an obscure pub from 1970).
What's interesting is to compare that to the NRA glossery definition which takes some editorial licence with the nuance of the term. Influence and inform perhaps?

Sturmgewehr also comes to mind as a miltary term, albeit not a US one, that typifies what drove weapons development following WWII that resulted in both the AK and AR series.

I'm not too sure how much qualifying the remarks about where we served inside the Marines helps, but since we're laying it out there I too grew up in combat arms units (proudly a repeat offender in 8th Marines at multiple Bns and the Regimental level) both in peacetime and combat. Much of the perspective I laid out last time derives directly from the IOC deep dive into Stormtroop tactics (WWI German assault techniques to clear trenches and punch through defenses). Semantics to be sure, but this is all semantics.
r-
Ray

 

[Dalko43]

Bottomline is the US Army has a definition of the term, so it is very much a military term (albeit one mostly focused on threat weapons like the AK series, and out of an obscure pub from 1970).
What's interesting is to compare that to the NRA glossery definition which takes some editorial licence with the nuance of the term. Influence and inform perhaps?

I'm curious to know where this definition can be found. Even so, based on what you're describing, it seems the term is less related to the standard issue weapons in Army service (automatic or otherwise) and more related to Soviet bloc weapons. Certainly within the modern military culture and jargon, "assault weapon" is not a commonly used term.

Sturmgewehr also comes to mind as a miltary term, albeit not a US one, that typifies what drove weapons development following WWII that resulted in both the AK and AR series.

I'm not too sure how much qualifying the remarks about where we served inside the Marines helps, but since we're laying it out there I too grew up in combat arms units (proudly a repeat offender in 8th Marines at multiple Bns and the Regimental level) both in peacetime and combat. Much of the perspective I laid out last time derives directly from the IOC deep dive into Stormtroop tactics (WWI German assault techniques to clear trenches and punch through defenses). Semantics to be sure, but this is all semantics.
r-
Ray

I agree the term had some historical usage when describing WWI and WWII era automatics. In modern military discussions, the term simply isn't used.

My comments about my service were brought up merely to point out that you're not the only one here with a military perspective on this issue. It sounds like you and I were very much in the same grunt community in the USMC, though I'm not sure our service times coincided. Outside of discussing certain WWI and WWII era weapons, "assault weapon" is not a term that is used, either as doctrine or informal jargon, within the USMC or the DoD in general.

That's not what an “assault rifle” is. What you described is a machine gun.

Actually, I disagree. In service, an AR-15 derived weapon is referred to as an M4 or M16, depending on barrel and stock length. Informally they may also be referred to as rifles or carbines. Most of these weapons are capable of 3 round bursts, though some early variants had full auto. Even so, they are not considered true machine guns.

A true machinegun is usually belt-fed or drum-fed (some, like the M249 can take standard issue magazines as well). They have larger barrels, beefier internals and better cooling, all of which makes them much better suited to prolonged bursts of automatic fire. The M4's, M16's and other infantry rifles may be capable of automatic fire, but that ability is inherently limited, mostly due to overheating.

In the wake of the 1986 NFA regulation, any civilian firearm capable of firing in full auto has been informally referred to as a machinegun. But technically speaking, the M2 .50 cal's, M249's, M240's and similar platforms have higher rates of fire and are better suited for full auto versus the M16's and other infantry rifles that have automatic fire modes.

 

[Ray_G]

I'm curious to know where this definition can be found. Even so, based on what you're describing, it seems the term is less related to the standard issue weapons in Army service (automatic or otherwise) and more related to Soviet bloc weapons. Certainly within the modern military culture and jargon, "assault weapon" is not a commonly used term.

Just for the sake of nerding out, the term is definitely resident in obsolete manuals-specifically the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide series, both Free World and Eurasian Communist country editions.

I agree the term had some historical usage when describing WWI and WWII era automatics. In modern military discussions, the term simply isn't used. My comments about my service were brought up merely to point out that you're not the only one here with a military perspective on this issue. It sounds like you and I were very much in the same grunt community in the USMC, though I'm not sure our service times coincided. Outside of discussing certain WWI and WWII era weapons, "assault weapon" is not a term that is used, either as doctrine or informal jargon, within the USMC or the DoD in general.

No argument that it isn't a common usage term, I was just highlighting the semantics of all this on all sides of the debate. My time in the USMC combat arms world started late 90's and I wish I could say it continues to the present day but the reality is I'm too far from that fundamental part of the Corps-but still in the game!
r-
Ray

 

[zb39]

That's not what an “assault rifle” is. What you described is a machine gun.

Actually, a machine-gun is a belted or magazine fed weapon firing a full powered cartridge and is crew served. Also, most machine-guns are not selective fire, they are full auto only. An M60 or M240 fit this description. An assault rifle is not crew served. nor does it fire a full powered cartridge like a battle rifle.

 

[Dalko43]

Just for the sake of nerding out, the term is definitely resident in obsolete manuals-specifically the Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide series, both Free World and Eurasian Communist country editions.



No argument that it isn't a common usage term, I was just highlighting the semantics of all this on all sides of the debate. My time in the USMC combat arms world started late 90's and I wish I could say it continues to the present day but the reality is I'm too far from that fundamental part of the Corps-but still in the game!
r-
Ray

Okay, I'd still like to see an actual reference for that weapons guide.

Also, I really doubt that the anyone involved in this partisan debate is using the term "assault weapon" because of their familiarity with some obscure and dated small arms guide. The term's modern usage in the gun debate is purely a result of politics; it has nothing to do with contemporary military jargon and doctrine.

 

[Ray_G]

Okay, I'd still like to see an actual reference for that weapons guide.

Also, I really doubt that the anyone involved in this partisan debate is using the term "assault weapon" because of their familiarity with some obscure and dated small arms guide. The term's modern usage in the gun debate is purely a result of politics; it has nothing to do with contemporary military jargon and doctrine.

Here you go, click at your own risk of course: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...07-03-74.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3NNtHesc4IeYMFsbAbMacp

and
http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Docum...IFICATION AND OPERATION GUIDE--FREE WORLD.pdf

What I'd love to know is who the staffer was that wrote into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the specific verbiage; b/c that's where you see it in law for the first time (I think):
Title XI: Firearms

Subtitle A: Assault Weapons

I also wonder when it went into the National Firearms Act vernacular, as you can see the ATF carries Assault Rifle in description(s) of various weapons that are subject to it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...firearms-within-purview-national-firearms-act

While we blame the media for how the term is used, I have to wonder if some technocrat either in the ATF realm or a professional staffer on the hill had a background that dove into the nuance of this and here we are-i.e. the words didn't appear out of thin air, while they were obscure they got into the main stream-and into law and administrative law-somehow. The how fascinates me.
r-
Ray

 

[Dalko43]

What I'd love to know is who the staffer was that wrote into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 the specific verbiage; b/c that's where you see it in law for the first time (I think):
Title XI: Firearms

Subtitle A: Assault Weapons

I also wonder when it went into the National Firearms Act vernacular, as you can see the ATF carries Assault Rifle in description(s) of various weapons that are subject to it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...firearms-within-purview-national-firearms-act

While we blame the media for how the term is used, I have to wonder if some technocrat either in the ATF realm or a professional staffer on the hill had a background that dove into the nuance of this and here we are-i.e. the words didn't appear out of thin air, while they were obscure they got into the main stream-and into law and administrative law-somehow. The how fascinates me.
r-
Ray

Even back in the late 80's and early 90's, "assault weapon" was not a term used in either informal jargon or established doctrine. A M16 was still known as a rifle. A M249 was known as a squad automatic weapon (or SAW for short). If some fellows in the ATF or other bureaucratic agencies started using that term then, it was likely because a politician wanted that specific language included. Speculation on my part; I have no conclusive evidence regarding the 'how' question you seem to be asking.

I just know that the "assault weapon" is not a commonly used term in the US military, and it hasn't been since at least the 40's and 50's (when there still was a distinct difference between fully automatic rifles and sub-machinegun's and standard-issue infantry rifles). "Assault" nowadays is more descriptive of a land warfare tactical task; any number of weapons can be used to carry out such a task.