4 ms·

yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual

yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
      - idiotsecant 4y ago
        >Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons. It's pedantic but while regular officers don't deploy full-auto weapons, police departments certainly have them.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      If you are in a real war and hit by a gun on automatic it is your own stupid fault. If you are killed by a gun using any form of semi-auto (including 3 round burst) it is just bad luck. Automatic guns are very useful in war, but the purpose isn't to kill it is to force the enemy to keep their head down (ie in a bunker) while you do something else. For your average soldier a automatic gun is just a waste of bullets. Which is why elite soldiers never use full auto mode: it is never a useful mode for them. It is still useful, but you don't need much training to run a gun in full auto mode, so generals put the non-elite troops on the automatic guns. (though sometimes an elite soldier will volunteer for the automatic duty - it is kind of fun to chew threw tens of thousands of bullets in one trigger pull)
  - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
    Yeah I've seen videos galore of people firing bolt action rifles as fast as any semi-auto. Youtube has tons of them and it's outright impressive.
lmm 4y ago
Your last point rather undermines your first. Turns out killing a deer-sized animal is a similar problem to killing a human-sized animal, who knew. (Hasn't the US military actually moved away from fully-automatic weapons for regular troops in favour of three-round-burst? So it ends up as a very close convergence)
- int_19h 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but the rhetoric OP references goes much further than that - it specifically claims that .223, the caliber in which semi-autos like AR-15 are chambered is somehow more deadly than "normal" hunting calibers, and that is supposedly a big part of what makes it a "weapon of war" etc. The actual story here is that regular hunting calibers tend to be significantly more powerful to maximize the probability of a humane (one-shot; ideally, instant) kill. In fact, many states don't allow hunting deer with .223 on the basis that it's not lethal enough. For similar reasons, most jurisdictions require hunters to use some kind of expanding bullet, whereas ARs are far more typically used with cheap military-style FMJ ammo.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    Spot on. I hunt red deer and while you _can_ use .223 / 5.56mm, a humane kill requires very precise shot placement. It's okay for smaller deer (fallow, whitetail, sika) and chamois, but not really for the reds, sambar, rusa or tahr. I use .308 Win, probably the most common calibre for red deer hunting here, but you meet people using fancy powerful rounds like 7mm Rem Mag or .338 Lapua.

germinalphrase 4y ago

Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    If you look up the definitions in any source, that is what you will find. If there wasn't a big difference, then it wouldn't be the case that every single military in the world uses assault rifles with select-fire capability. Also, if you watch videos of actual military operations, you will find the 3-round burst used very frequently because it is a lot more lethal than semiautomatic mode. Only special ops troops tend to use semiautomatic mode for fighting (since they are better marksmen and are concerned about noise). Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      >Police also only use semiautomatic weapons, because they don't have access to automatic weapons. It's pedantic but while regular officers don't deploy full-auto weapons, police departments certainly have them.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    If you are in a real war and hit by a gun on automatic it is your own stupid fault. If you are killed by a gun using any form of semi-auto (including 3 round burst) it is just bad luck. Automatic guns are very useful in war, but the purpose isn't to kill it is to force the enemy to keep their head down (ie in a bunker) while you do something else. For your average soldier a automatic gun is just a waste of bullets. Which is why elite soldiers never use full auto mode: it is never a useful mode for them. It is still useful, but you don't need much training to run a gun in full auto mode, so generals put the non-elite troops on the automatic guns. (though sometimes an elite soldier will volunteer for the automatic duty - it is kind of fun to chew threw tens of thousands of bullets in one trigger pull)
- Tool_of_Society 4y ago
  Yeah I've seen videos galore of people firing bolt action rifles as fast as any semi-auto. Youtube has tons of them and it's outright impressive.

lmm 4y ago

Your last point rather undermines your first. Turns out killing a deer-sized animal is a similar problem to killing a human-sized animal, who knew. (Hasn't the US military actually moved away from fully-automatic weapons for regular troops in favour of three-round-burst? So it ends up as a very close convergence)

int_19h 4y ago
You're not wrong, but the rhetoric OP references goes much further than that - it specifically claims that .223, the caliber in which semi-autos like AR-15 are chambered is somehow more deadly than "normal" hunting calibers, and that is supposedly a big part of what makes it a "weapon of war" etc. The actual story here is that regular hunting calibers tend to be significantly more powerful to maximize the probability of a humane (one-shot; ideally, instant) kill. In fact, many states don't allow hunting deer with .223 on the basis that it's not lethal enough. For similar reasons, most jurisdictions require hunters to use some kind of expanding bullet, whereas ARs are far more typically used with cheap military-style FMJ ammo.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  Spot on. I hunt red deer and while you _can_ use .223 / 5.56mm, a humane kill requires very precise shot placement. It's okay for smaller deer (fallow, whitetail, sika) and chamois, but not really for the reds, sambar, rusa or tahr. I use .308 Win, probably the most common calibre for red deer hunting here, but you meet people using fancy powerful rounds like 7mm Rem Mag or .338 Lapua.