In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Assualt rifle? what comes to mind?
MVP
Member Posts: 23,453 ✭✭✭
Assualt Rifle.
Everyone seems to hate the term but doesn't it bring to mind a certain class of rifles? Even if the term was brought about by polititions who needed a label for rifles they are afraid of? Language is constantly evolving even to the point when you hear Gay what comes to mind now. That wasn't always the meaning but it is now.
When someone says soccerball in the USA and Football in Mexico and then Football in the USA they have different meanings but the people speaking can understand that a football is a soccerball in mexico.
So in this day and age when an assualt rifle is termed everyone knows it is not a bolt action, muzzleloader, lever action or single shot type rifles.
If military type rifles are now termed assualt rifles we shouldn't have to defend the right to own them, just Because of the labels put on them, anymore then if the media decided to call them Murder rifles.
The rifle is the rifle no matter what they call them and law abiding citizens should not become criminals or lose their rights because of demonizing labels.
I guess I am just trying to say the fight to Keep and Bear Arms is more then the labels they put on it. Call them anything you want to but don't make me an assualting madman just because I own rifles with a pistolgrip, bayonet lug, hicap interchangeable mag and collapsable stock.
Everyone seems to hate the term but doesn't it bring to mind a certain class of rifles? Even if the term was brought about by polititions who needed a label for rifles they are afraid of? Language is constantly evolving even to the point when you hear Gay what comes to mind now. That wasn't always the meaning but it is now.
When someone says soccerball in the USA and Football in Mexico and then Football in the USA they have different meanings but the people speaking can understand that a football is a soccerball in mexico.
So in this day and age when an assualt rifle is termed everyone knows it is not a bolt action, muzzleloader, lever action or single shot type rifles.
If military type rifles are now termed assualt rifles we shouldn't have to defend the right to own them, just Because of the labels put on them, anymore then if the media decided to call them Murder rifles.
The rifle is the rifle no matter what they call them and law abiding citizens should not become criminals or lose their rights because of demonizing labels.
I guess I am just trying to say the fight to Keep and Bear Arms is more then the labels they put on it. Call them anything you want to but don't make me an assualting madman just because I own rifles with a pistolgrip, bayonet lug, hicap interchangeable mag and collapsable stock.
Comments
like sturmgewehr-44, the first assault rifle
I don't consider rifles in .308 or .30-06 "Assault rifles", automatic rifle seems to me as a better term, provided that the guven weapon is select-fire of course (BAR, M-14, etc.)
Assault rifles are down calibered and select fire
I don't think he will. This subject has been beat to death but I only want to point out it is not about what the rifle is labeled, correct or not, but the fight is for our rights to own rifles regardless of the labels or configuration.
I guess the first configuration ban was that a rifle had to have a barrel of 16" and overall lengths had to be met.
Then shotguns were restricted to barrel lengths and the guage/bore was restricted to 10G.
So label firearms all they want but it is things like bayonets and pistol grips that are going to be banned again so enjoy them now while we can or vote decent pro-gun politicians as best as we can to office.
It's a made up term by the anti-gunners to make arms seem somehow evil all by themselves.
When Klintoon banned the "assault weapons", they had to have 3 or more of the following 5 to be classified as "assault weapons".
1. a folding or collapsable stock,
2. a bayonett or bayonett holder
3. a grenade launcher
4. a detachable magazine
5. capable of going from semi-auto to full-auto by a switch or lever
This legislation has since elapsed w/o being re-newed because of it's in-effectivness, ya think?
If guns kill people, all mine are defective, AB.
[;)]
The term "assault rifle" was widely used by the pro-firearm industry many years ago as a term that would attract certain types of individuals to buy certain types of firearms. The anti-gun forces cannot be blamed for coining the term, nor can they be blamed that the term was used as a marketing device by the pro-gun community. It is going to be really difficult, now, for the pro-gun community to deny the existence of such a classification of firearm, or to try to re-define what an assault rifle is. After all, it was the pro-gun community who first started using the term to describe semi-automatic rifles.
I have seen members here who apparently strongly object to the term "assault rifle", but will use the term "battle rifle" to describe a general class of weapon. Is there really a significant diffgerence between the terms "assault rifle" and
"battle rifle" that one term is acceptable, and the other is not? Hogwash. If all of a sudden, the anti-gun forces started using the term "battle rifle", is the pro-gun community going to get all offended? Or maybe it's okay for us to have "battle rifles" as opposed to "assault rifles".
It is going to be very difficult, in fact impossible, to turn back the hand of time on this one.
Personally, I get no negative connotations when the term ASSAULT RIFLE is used. I like them. If others get a negative connotation from the use of the term, that is their problem.
The Santa Fe ad was 1964, the Craig ad was 1966. Also note the '74 Gun Digest reference to the BM59 assault rifle. This is three ads from 60's - 70's calling this type of rifle an assault rifle. Was it wrong to do so? Perhaps, but this is what we have to deal with now. My point being, this term has been used for too long, and by the pro-gun community, to try to re-write history and blame the anti-gun forces for it's use.
Again, it was the Beretta Firearms company (the oldest surviving firearms company in history) that, to my knowledge, first used the term "assault rifle" as a way to market their 7.62 NATO BM59 rifle. They did this back in the early 1960's, before the M16 was adopted by the US military and before the AR15 was available to the buying public. Even today, official Beretta literature refers to the BM59 as an assault rifle.
And before anyone says the BM59 was strictly a select fire weapon, it was not. The Beretta factory offered strictly semi-auto versions to military forces, the BM59SL and many of the BM59E series were semi-auto only.
My, what a difference 40 years makes! As can be clearly seen, what was commonly accepted as an assault rifle 40 years ago is not accepted as one now. And while then, the term held positive connotations in the firearms community, now the pro-gun forces seem to hate the word, and are attempting to re-define what the term really means, or deny the term all together!
Ben
AR -15 not an assualt rifle
M 16 Is an assualt rifle..
somthing capable of extremley rapid fire. Basically a lesser capacity of a machine gun and highly accurate well some of them are.
Beating a centerfire rifle with a baseball bat.
quote: Assualt rifle? what comes to mind?
Beating a centerfire rifle with a baseball bat.
isn't that rifle battery?
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote: Assualt rifle? what comes to mind?
Beating a centerfire rifle with a baseball bat.
isn't that rifle battery?
[:D][:D][:D]
Beretta still, to this day, refers to their BM59 as an "Assault Rifle". In the 1960's, firearms marketers and manufacturers used the term to sell their weapons to the gun-loving community. It was years later the term was turned against us.
The term "assault rifle" was widely used by the pro-firearm industry many years ago as a term that would attract certain types of individuals to buy certain types of firearms. The anti-gun forces cannot be blamed for coining the term, nor can they be blamed that the term was used as a marketing device by the pro-gun community. It is going to be really difficult, now, for the pro-gun community to deny the existence of such a classification of firearm, or to try to re-define what an assault rifle is. After all, it was the pro-gun community who first started using the term to describe semi-automatic rifles.
I have seen members here who apparently strongly object to the term "assault rifle", but will use the term "battle rifle" to describe a general class of weapon. Is there really a significant diffgerence between the terms "assault rifle" and
"battle rifle" that one term is acceptable, and the other is not? Hogwash. If all of a sudden, the anti-gun forces started using the term "battle rifle", is the pro-gun community going to get all offended? Or maybe it's okay for us to have "battle rifles" as opposed to "assault rifles".
It is going to be very difficult, in fact impossible, to turn back the hand of time on this one.
Personally, I get no negative connotations when the term ASSAULT RIFLE is used. I like them. If others get a negative connotation from the use of the term, that is their problem.
The Santa Fe ad was 1964, the Craig ad was 1966. Also note the '74 Gun Digest reference to the BM59 assault rifle. This is three ads from 60's - 70's calling this type of rifle an assault rifle. Was it wrong to do so? Perhaps, but this is what we have to deal with now. My point being, this term has been used for too long, and by the pro-gun community, to try to re-write history and blame the anti-gun forces for it's use.
Again, it was the Beretta Firearms company (the oldest surviving firearms company in history) that, to my knowledge, first used the term "assault rifle" as a way to market their 7.62 NATO BM59 rifle. They did this back in the early 1960's, before the M16 was adopted by the US military and before the AR15 was available to the buying public. Even today, official Beretta literature refers to the BM59 as an assault rifle.
And before anyone says the BM59 was strictly a select fire weapon, it was not. The Beretta factory offered strictly semi-auto versions to military forces, the BM59SL and many of the BM59E series were semi-auto only.
My, what a difference 40 years makes! As can be clearly seen, what was commonly accepted as an assault rifle 40 years ago is not accepted as one now. And while then, the term held positive connotations in the firearms community, now the pro-gun forces seem to hate the word, and are attempting to re-define what the term really means, or deny the term all together!
Very interesting post boeboe.
I still don't see how you can infer that the gun industry revolves around 1 retailer who ran an ad about 1 make of foriegn gun, (Beretta).
If the "gun industry" condoned the term "assault rifle", I would need to see a high % of gun makers labeling their products as such to believe that, not just 1 advertisement.
Example, The Automobile Industry doesn't say GMC is "Professional Grade", (GMC) says they're "Professional Grade". BIG DIFFERENCE!
I agree that all guns are good.
If someone whacks their neighbor with a shovel, the shovel could be called an "assault shovel", but we all know the * w/ the shovel is at fault, not the shovel or Ace Hardware who sold it.
Thankx boeboe, AB.
[8D]
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
There's no such thing as an assault rifle!
It's a made up term by the anti-gunners to make arms seem somehow evil all by themselves.
When Klintoon banned the "assault weapons", they had to have 3 or more of the following 5 to be classified as "assault weapons".
1. a folding or collapsable stock,
2. a bayonett or bayonett holder
3. a grenade launcher
4. a detachable magazine
5. capable of going from semi-auto to full-auto by a switch or lever
This legislation has since elapsed w/o being re-newed because of it's in-effectivness, ya think?
If guns kill people, all mine are defective, AB.
[;)]
Geez. I hope you, and everybody else, doesn't believe that gun laws are passed or not re-newed based on logic, reason, reality or "in-effectivness".
The first thing that comes to MY mind when I read "assualt rifle" is that MVP misspelled the word "assault." [:D]
[:D]My apologies
One of these days i am going to learn how to spell even if it kills me.
Very interesting post boeboe.
I still don't see how you can infer that the gun industry revolves around 1 retailer who ran an ad about 1 make of foriegn gun, (Beretta).
If the "gun industry" condoned the term "assault rifle", I would need to see a high % of gun makers labeling their products as such to believe that, not just 1 advertisement.
Example, The Automobile Industry doesn't say GMC is "Professional Grade", (GMC) says they're "Professional Grade". BIG DIFFERENCE!
I agree that all guns are good.
If someone whacks their neighbor with a shovel, the shovel could be called an "assault shovel", but we all know the * w/ the shovel is at fault, not the shovel or Ace Hardware who sold it.
Thankx boeboe, AB.
[8D]
AB, just to clarify, these are actually three ads, not one, from different firearm distributors. Two of the three refer to their products as "Beretta", but actually, National Ordnance never had rights to the Beretta name (this was actually just a National Ordnance made Beretta copy), and Golden State (Santa Fe) was building their rifles here in the USA under license from Beretta. Beretta actually pulled their license at one point and Golden State continued to make and sell the Santa Fe M59 without Beretta licensing. Walter Craig was not associated with Beretta in any way, and in fact, the rifle is not a BM59. His "M11" is an M1 Garand variation that takes M14 magazines. BM59 rifles take only BM59 magazines, and will not accept M14 magazines, so they are two different rifles.
Also, not included here is the four language poster that Beretta published for their own marketing to military forces. It is this Beretta factory literature that was first used by a firearms manufacter to promote an "assault rifle" (I believe).
I happen to be a BM59 enthusiast, so I collect BM59 literature. But that does not mean that other firearms were also refered to as "assault rifles" by the distributors within a similar time frame. I would also observe that it is very unlikely that Beretta "coined" the term "assault rifle". It was, no doubt, an existing term they elected to use to convey an impression of their product.
So in any event, these ads are not reflective of just one rifle and one manufacturer/distributor. They reflect two different rifles, and three different manufacturers/distributors. The actual Italian made Beretta BM59 would be the fourth actual manufacturer.
I doubt that there are a high number of gunmakers that make (or made) rifles that would typically be considered "assault rifles", so finding a high percentage of manufactures who use the term would naturally be difficult. For example, I don't recall Remmington or Winchester or Stevens making anything for public consumption that could be considered "assault rifle". But, as I say, it is most probably that Beretta and Walter Craig opted to use a term that was already commonly accepted to market their product.
Also, I am not arguing that the term "assault rifle" is actually a valid technical term. I believe it is clear what was considered an "assault rifle" 30 and 40 years ago is different than what is commonly accepted now. Part of my point is that, historically, it is difficult to determine the exact nature of such a rifle.
I will continue to use "assault rifle" and use my assault fist on anyone who uses the term to villify firearms [:D]
quote:Originally posted by Archibald Barasol
Very interesting post boeboe.
I still don't see how you can infer that the gun industry revolves around 1 retailer who ran an ad about 1 make of foriegn gun, (Beretta).
If the "gun industry" condoned the term "assault rifle", I would need to see a high % of gun makers labeling their products as such to believe that, not just 1 advertisement.
Example, The Automobile Industry doesn't say GMC is "Professional Grade", (GMC) says they're "Professional Grade". BIG DIFFERENCE!
I agree that all guns are good.
If someone whacks their neighbor with a shovel, the shovel could be called an "assault shovel", but we all know the * w/ the shovel is at fault, not the shovel or Ace Hardware who sold it.
Thankx boeboe, AB.
[8D]
AB, just to clarify, these are actually three ads, not one, from different firearm distributors. Two of the three refer to their products as "Beretta", but actually, National Ordnance never had rights to the Beretta name (this was actually just a National Ordnance made Beretta copy), and Golden State (Santa Fe) was building their rifles here in the USA under license from Beretta. Beretta actually pulled their license at one point and Golden State continued to make and sell the Santa Fe M59 without Beretta licensing. Walter Craig was not associated with Beretta in any way, and in fact, the rifle is not a BM59. His "M11" is an M1 Garand variation that takes M14 magazines. BM59 rifles take only BM59 magazines, and will not accept M14 magazines, so they are two different rifles.
Also, not included here is the four language poster that Beretta published for their own marketing to military forces. It is this Beretta factory literature that was first used by a firearms manufacter to promote an "assault rifle" (I believe).
I happen to be a BM59 enthusiast, so I collect BM59 literature. But that does not mean that other firearms were also refered to as "assault rifles" by the distributors within a similar time frame. I would also observe that it is very unlikely that Beretta "coined" the term "assault rifle". It was, no doubt, an existing term they elected to use to convey an impression of their product.
So in any event, these ads are not reflective of just one rifle and one manufacturer/distributor. They reflect two different rifles, and three different manufacturers/distributors. The actual Italian made Beretta BM59 would be the fourth actual manufacturer.
I doubt that there are a high number of gunmakers that make (or made) rifles that would typically be considered "assault rifles", so finding a high percentage of manufactures who use the term would naturally be difficult. For example, I don't recall Remmington or Winchester or Stevens making anything for public consumption that could be considered "assault rifle". But, as I say, it is most probably that Beretta and Walter Craig opted to use a term that was already commonly accepted to market their product.
Also, I am not arguing that the term "assault rifle" is actually a valid technical term. I believe it is clear what was considered an "assault rifle" 30 and 40 years ago is different than what is commonly accepted now. Part of my point is that, historically, it is difficult to determine the exact nature of such a rifle.
Thankx for the info boeboe & have a great Memorial Day, AB.[:D]