Talk:Assault rifle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assault rifle is a "vital" article?

This article is a "vital" one? What does that mean? And how do bots determine an article is vital? Lightbreather (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Bots don't determine it, but a bot may have tagged the article based on some humans determination. "Vital" just means its a topic which should have a high quality article associated with it (IE, the concept is important). It says nothing about the current state of the article. "Level 4" means the concept is considered one of the top 10,000 topics. "Firearm" itself is vital, with the sub articles of assault rifle, handgun, machinegun, musket, rifle and shotgun being sub articles. All of which are subarticles of Projectile Weapons. There is no purpose to the "vital" designation except to bring extra attention to the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Editors determined that "Assault rifle" is a "level 4 vital article", and the bot tagged it as such here on the talk page. Further reading:

• Wikipedia:Vital articles
• Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Frequently Asked Questions
• Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Technology

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I will check them out. I just wanted to know when and where "editors determined that 'Assault rifle' is a 'level 4 article.'" Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as who, what, why, when, and where -- or at least, to get a bit more information -- check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

[1] Not sure if there was discussion or something to go along with the original addition, but I did find [2] and [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitler credited for naming the weapon Sturmgewehr

An anonymous user added "allegdly" (sic) to the sentence about Hitler coining the term Sturmgewehr. The edit was subsequently removed by User:RAF910 with the note "U.S. War Department publication is a reliable reference". That may be so, but:

1. The source webpage itself says As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate,;
2. It's written like propaganda in the source document;
3. There doesn't appear to be a scan of the source document available for verification, the only source is transcribed;
4. The German wiki entry says it's unclear who named the weapon, and suggests it may have been General Erich Jaschke;
5. No other source can be found which supports the claim that Hitler named the weapon.

I'm not saying Hitler didn't name it, but I think having the word allegedly in there is a good idea.

--Dziban303 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

AIUI, the weapon was named by a group of generals (maybe Jaschke) for political reasons to appease Hitler (rather than Hitler himself coming up with the name).

Hitler was a lousy general and tactician, in particular because he was still thinking in terms of a WWI trench mentality. He thought that rifles were for taking slow aimed shots across No Man's Land. He didn't like machine pistols for front line combat, as he saw their small cartridges as pointless. He didn't like the early goals of what would become the Sturmgewehr, or the Maschinenpistole 43 as it then was. Remember that this is using the Kurz round.

So as all good German generals learned to do, they pandered to Hitler's biases. Hitler did like Sturmtruppen, again from his WWI mentality. So rename it from Maschinenpistole to Sturmgewehr and play up to his fixed thinking. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Military Technology and Innovation, p. 25 "Minor changes, and Hitler's personal endorsement, brought the new name 'Sturmgewehr 44' in 1944"

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, p. 218 "In 1944 Hitler rescinded his opposition to the MP 43 and bestowed the more accurate designation of Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) upon the weapon."

So there's two sources that say that Hitler named it Sturmgewehr. Might be that the authors confused Hitler's approval of the name with him coining it, but this is what the sources say nonetheless.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That second source (can't read the first one) says that it was renamed from Maschinenkarbine (which is the idea Hitler didn't like) to Maschinenpistole (MP40s already existed, so weren't a novel idea) to appease or hide from Hitler. It was then renamed a second time, to Sturmgewehr, and that was the rename by Hitler. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Towards the end of 1944, a further term was given to the weapon: this, StG44 (for Sturmgewehr - 'assault rifle' - 44), is said to have been bestowed upon the rifles by a well-satisfied Adolf Hitler. At any rate, it more adequately describes the rifles' role. the weapon was originally designated as a machine pistol - or submachine gun - in order to circumvent Hitler's directive that development of rifles was to cease and production of machine pistols stepped up: by calling the weapon an MP the production figures thus appeared in the 'MP' columns of the monthly production reports boosting the figures, and disappeared from the rifle columns." (Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 7th Edition, Ian V. Hogg, page 243).

As for the idea that Hitler "was still thinking in terms of a WWI trench mentality. He thought that rifles were for taking slow aimed shots across No Man's Land. He didn't like machine pistols for front line combat, as he saw their small cartridges as pointless." is absolute nonsense (see above reference). Hitler was obsessed with new tactics and weapons. He was a champion of blitzkrieg, V weapons, air warfare, paratroopers, tank warfare, etc...and especially the production of all types of machine guns.--RAF910 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a bold step and added two of the sources brought up here to the relevant piece of text. Don't be afraid to revert if you have a reason to, but please say why on talk if you do.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Magazine capacity

Faceless Enemy, the classical definition for an assault rifle is one with a "large-capacity magazine" as cited by Musgrave and Nelson, Assault Weapons of the World, vol. II, (1967). Yes, an AKM is still an assault rifle whether it has a 5-round mag or none at all but if we're going by strict definitions we need to change the definition of effective range of 300 meters. Most military's and major law enforcement agencies throughout the world use submunitions for training. I think you'd agree that even though they lack an effective range of much less than 300 meters it doesn't change the definition of an assault rifle anymore than if they were firing blanks. Either, we say typically has a large-capacity magazine and typically has an effective range of 300 meters, as we can't be a purist with one definition and a generalist with the other. Thank youIcemanwcs (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Icemanwcs:, that's exactly my point. Simply using simmunition in a rifle doesn't turn it into a different type of firearm, just as putting a 5-round magazine into an AKM doesn't mean it's no longer an assault rifle. It's kind of a moot point either way though - I can't think of any firearms that meet the other definitions but don't have large-ish capacity magazines. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy, you're right, moot point either way. All the best,Icemanwcs (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

AVS as flagship for Assault rifles

This addition is a clear case of misrepresenting the sources so I have removed it. What Hogg actually states is "The Federov selective-fire rifle can probably lay claim to being the ancestor of the present generation of assault rifles, although it falls into that category perhaps more by chance than by design." He will go on to state that the rifle suffered from excessive muzzle blast and recoil in addition to having an open receiver which left the weapon exposed to mud and dirt. "Whether it was this defect, or simply that the unusual locking system failed to live up to its promise, the fact remains that the AVS had a very short service life, being replaced in 1938 by the more simple Tokarev."

If the designers of the StG 44 used the AVS as a blueprint to any part of their design then there might be a claim but in actuality they didn't. It was a failed weapon that had no influence on the StG 44. Claiming it was the forerunner is false.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Failed weapons ? No. StG is a failed weapon, not AVS. AVS was ceased to be used because the catridge is Arisaka 6,5mm, by which the USSR did not import and did not spend effort to domestically produce it. AVS is the first assault rifle but the Western propaganda do not want to recognize it.

StG is a failure and it has nothing to do with AVS, and nothing to do with AK. StG is not even an assault rifle, it is a machine pistol. The original name is MP 44.

MP 44 is not an assault rifle. It has no handguard and the catridge is damn weak. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The source that you provided stated that it is a failed weapon...but I actually see that you went and grabbed a block of refs from the StG 44 article...refs that you don't actually have, do you? You didn't bother to read any of them did you? I walked twenty feet from where I was editing and picked up the actual book out of a bookshelf full of firearms books. The AK was designed after Kalashnikov was given captured StG 44s. (This is what the sources say) Your credibility is now zero. We're not going to argue semantics here as English terminology is clear and we don't need anymore confused Checkovs. Competence is required on Wikipedia. You misrepresented the sources and now that you got caught you want to call it "Western propaganda".
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is propaganda, from book to media, from school to workplaces. A propaganda make nearly half of the population believe in idiocy of the Bible.

Kalashnikov was given the StG 44 ? So ? That doesn't make the StG 44 an assault rifle and that doesn't make any connection between StG 44 and AK. StG 44 uses tilting bolt, while AK uses rotating bolt. AK's design rotating bolt is learned from M1 Garand, it has nothing to do with StG 44. USSR began to develop M43 intermediate catridge in 1943, tried it in AS-44 of Sudaev and verified the concept of intermediate cartridge established by Fedorov Avtomat.

Not to mention that StG 44 is machine pistol, its original name is MP 44. An assault rifle does not have proper handguard ? Don't joke with me, have you ever try to aim using a rifle ?

You read books but do you understand the concept of assault rifle behind it ? 115.78.134.153 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The "MP" designation was to sneak it by Hitler. "As work moved forward to incorporate this new firing system, development halted when Hitler suspended all new rifle programs due to administrative infighting within the Third Reich. Hitler ordered that newer submachine guns were to be built, and he strongly disagreed with the use of the Kurz ammunition. To keep the MKb 42(H) development program alive, the Waffen Amt (Armament Office) re-designated the weapon as the Maschinenpistole 43 (MP 43) and, making a few improvements, billed the weapon as an upgrade to existing submachine guns." And 7.92×33mm is an intermediate rifle cartridge, not a pistol cartridge. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

My Mini-14 uses .223

My Mini-Thirty uses 7.62 x 39 mm

When I read the Osprey source that you provided, I can't help but laugh because it basically bolsters my point that it was a failed weapon. Since you previously used Hogg as a source, you may be interested in what he actually says regarding the progenitor of modern combat weapons. Yeah, I have put a few hundred thousand rounds through numerous weapons; built weapons starting from just the receiver, etc. I personally prefer .308 weapons so I own several of these; HK91(s), L1A1, Rem 700 VS, Rem 700 LTR...but I do own weapons that use assault rifle calibers as seen in the photos. I got rid of SKS (junk) and don't care to own an AK-47 because in the US they are grossly over-priced. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I prefer machined weapons rather than stamped metal. If I could get a Romainian AK-47 for $200 then it would be a decent deal. So no, I'm not just someone with an academic-only interest in firearms. Faceless Enemy's point can be seen here.

Have you considered that it might be you who has been subject to propaganda? We use reliable sources in our articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What ? You use a lot of gun and you don't know that a handguard is neccessary for gunner to put a hand to it to make a proper aim ?

MP 44 is truly a MP. It has no handguard, and soldiers put the left hand to the magazine, that pose is to quickly change the direction of the gun in close combat, that is a distinctive characteristic of machine pistol. On the other hand, a rifle/assault rifle desire much more about accuracy, that's why people put the hand at the handguard, nearer to the muzzle, to have a better aiming.

Kurz 7.92mm is also weak. It is slightly stronger than PPSh 7.62x25mm, but still weak. The name is Pistolenpatrone 43, a pistol cartridge. MP 44 is truly a machine pistol, it was named MP not because of evading the wrath of Hitler.

The reason why Fedorov Avtomat was produced in a short period and small number, because it used foreign catridge, Arisaka 6.5mm. Fedorov tried to developed a domestic catridge for the Avtomat, but thanks to the idiocy and slavery nature of Russian monarch, he could not manage to. After 1917, the Red Army was poor, and did not have enough money to develop a domestic intermediate cartridge and further develop the concept of Fedorov Avtomat. Therefore they reverted back to the cheap and already reliable Mosin Nagant. Fedorov Avtomat was still limitedly use until WW2 due to out of ammunition. The design of Fedorov Avtomat was modified to use the old Mosin 7.62mm, it became Degtyaryov LMG. Russian assault rifles was stagnated for roughly a decades until WW2 when people started to realize the importance of "assault" characteristic and/or accumulate enough money to invest into that. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

But they weren't investing in any Russian anything. The developments were independent of Russian developments...one thing had nothing to do with another. On the other hand, Kalashnikov's developments had everything to do with the captured StG 44s.

Your handguard arguments don't hold water. For a time, I had reconfigured my L1A1 into an L2A1 facsimile (without full auto sear) and this meant removing the handguard and adding a bipod. Photos for reference. Handguard or not, it was still the same basic rifle.

You're not going to be able to argue with your original research, synthesis and non-neutral point of view. You stooped to patently misrepresenting the sources to carry your own view which directly contradicts reliable mainstream sources. You have been shown sources but are carrying on as if you didn't hear that. Again, we're not going to argue semantics here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Kalashnikov's developments had everything to do with the captured StG 44s" ? What the... ? Wait, wait, wait a bit there what does AK's rotating bolt has anything to do with MP 44's tilting bolt ? 115.77.4.168 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

To prevent any misunderstanding, although you know full well, I am the above IP. I forgot to log in. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Right. Further up in this same section is another of your IPs and I knew that this was you and don't believe that you were trying to do anything illegitimate.

Making the point about the rotating bolt doesn't really help your case because it shows that he was borrowing technology and does more to show that he was engaged in copying more than he invented...i.e. they weren't his innovations. What does that prove?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As the editor making changes to a well reference article, the burden of proof falls on Sholokhov to provide irrefutable references to support his claims. He has failed to meet this standard. Contrary to all established references in the article, Sholokhov claims that the StG 44 is NOT an assault rifle and had nothing to do with the development of the AK-47. He claims that the references provided in the article are nothing more than propaganda. He claims that the StG 44 has no hand-guard and that it is a short range weapon comparable to a sub-machinegun. The only evidence that he has provided to support these unique claims is a single Wiki image. See below...

Yet, this image clearly shows an StG with a hand-guard and and fitted with ZF 4 sniper scope, completely refuting his own argument. ( see second photo with the hand-guard clearly labeled... http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html). The fact that he seems completely unaware of this most basic piece of firearms knowledge, disqualifies him from editing this page. Competence is required on Wikipedia and Sholokhov is clearly incompetent on the subject matter. Also, the fact that he calls all establish references in the article nothing more than propaganda, lead me to believe that he is unwilling to assume good faith and as such is unfit to edit Wikipedia in general. --RAF910 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell. Does that "handguard" prevent your hand from being heatburned if you put your hand continuously long time ? The only thing it can does it reduce the effect of heat if you mistakenly put the hand into the place.

@Berean Hunter: I am not hurt if you say Kalashnikov copy from this to that. AK design was "copy" from many thing, it didn't appear from nowhere. The gas operation tube was borrowed from Czechoslovakia ZB. The bolt was borrow from M1 Garand. The concept was set from Fedorov Avtomat. The idea of M43 cartridge was developed and tested by the USSR before AK was born. In short, Russian assault rifle is a collective and long term program, developed by many people and competitors, and get the idea from many places. Kalashnikov's design was the final winner in that long-time development. But MP 44 has nothing to be suited as the ancestor or inspiration of AK. Again, what does MP 44's tilting bolt has anything to do with AK's rotating bolt ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read this discussion in full. It seems like User:Sholokhov is trying to push some kind of POV into the article. He claims that the StG44 is a "failed weapon", not an assault rifle but a machine pistol, and had no influence on the AK47. Every single available source refutes his claims, but he turned around and accused ever available source as being "Western propaganda". This incredible insistance at denying the hard facts shows an obvious WP:CIR violation. Any continued editing in this fasion is disruptive and should result in a short block or topic ban. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably last post before I get a temporal/permanent ban, who knows. Without a proper handguard to effectively isolate the heat, the soldier cannot put the hand near the muzzle to have a proper aim. Nobody forbid you to put your hand at that position when the barrel is still not very hot, but I guess you already know full well how hot the barrel of a gun can become and in which time. About the Pistolenpatrone, that is pistol cartridge. The warhead diameter is nearly big as AK, but the propellant chamber is damn short. Germany killed MKb rifle program in 193x, and in 194x modified a MP to match the role of assault rifle, that method is totally stupid and it was caused by the stupidity of Hitler and his allies.

AK uses rotating bolt learned from M1 Garand, while MP 44 uses tilting bolt. You have to remember that, MP 44's kind of tilting bolt causes unfavorable vibration which is disliked by Russia and Germany. Actually Russia had the AS-44 using tilting bolt, but the historical role of AS-44 is simply testifying the concept of assault rifle and M43 cartridge, and AS-44 was not adopted. The Belgium FN FAL also used tilting bolt, but it was designed so that the vibrations more or less neutralize each other, which reduces the net effect.

But to be fair, we can consider that 193x-194x German guns for examp;le SK39 with the GECO cartridge 7.92x40mm, as the first attempt of Germany to create assault rifle. SK39 is one of the latest version of the MKb35 program - the first assault rifle program of Germany, and the GECO 7.92x40mm is quite similar to the Russian M43 7.62mm.

Let me off topic a bit. You may know full well the goals of German MKb program, the product of MKb program should be 1) lighter and shorter than Mauser K98, 2) effective range similar to K98, 3) full auto fire-rate not faster than 360-450rpm, 4) resistance against dust and sand, 5) simple design. The biggest mistake of MKB requirements is that, it demanded the effective range similar to Mauser K98, that requirement significantly hamper the "assault" capability due to high recoil, and K98 effective range is not necessary because for average human soldier 300 metre is enough.

Back to SK39, it was killed by Hitler and his political allies. You may already know full well about Hitler dislike the idea of assault rifle. Because his close allies who held power in Nazi war industry were mainly MP producers. For the sake of MP allies, Hitler killed SK39 and MKb programs, and went on with MP designs. Only a small number of MKb35 guns were produced, and the strongest supporter of German assault rifle, Heinrich Vollmer, fell out of favour. Haenel and Walther continued to maintain the research of MKb prototypes, but H and W were wealthy businessmen rather than true scientists. To please the ego of Hitler faction, H and W corrupted the MKb program, use simpler design, smaller cartridge, i.e. made the MKb program become more and more like MP. Researches and experiments of the strong 8x40mm cartridge stopped after 1939. At the year of 1942, MKb prototypes used smaller 8x33mm cartridge, similar to the Pistolenpatrone of the MP 44.

German MKb received a further blow with the impressive performance of German MP at the beginning of WW2. At that time, opponents of Germany were small countries, weak countries, or countries with obsolete tactics and wrong military doctrine (France, etc). Therefore MP could easily win the battle and it caused the delusion of "superman MP". But Germany received a terrible shock when it invaded Russia in June 1941. Germany gradually witness Russian weapons like PPD, PPSh which were much stronger than MP38, and T-34 which was much better than Panzer 3 or Panzer 4. Shocked by the performance of PPSh and 7.62x25mm Tokarev, Hitler ramped up the already-corrupted MKb since 1942. But the MKb program was damn corrupted since 1939, 8x40mm cartridge was stopped to be developed for years, the MKB prototypes had no choice but went on with the weak 8x33mm cartridge.

That means, instead of making a matured assault rifle right from the beginning, Hitler killed the assault rifle SK-39 to went on with MP, and then modified the MP to match the role of assault rifle. A crazy way to go, that craziness was caused by the idiocy and ignorance of Hitler faction.

So you can see, the result of it, the MP 44, or you people like to name, StG 44, is a prematured baby, a freaking fetus. MP 44 is a laughing stock for German weapon makers. The 8x33mm is slightly stronger than 7.62x25 Tokarev, but still weak and in fact it essentially is a MP cartridge. In order to increase the power, Germany put as much as possible propellant into the small 33mm chamber, but that caused overpressure and increased the burden to the gun. The gun is as weak as a MP, but heavy (5.2 kg), and does not have a proper handguard which is necessarily to have a proper aim for a rifle.

MP 44 was adopted in the same year as G43 and MG42. The number produced is limited (430,000). And it is a failure, disregard of Hitler's attempt to propaganda as a magic to stop PPSh, and disregard of Western propaganda as a mean to dishonor the Avtomat Kalashnikov.

So in short it is like this.

• AK has nothing to do with MP/StG 44.
• StG 44 is essentially a MP who were, unsuccessfully, modified to fight as a StG.
• Germany actually had its own StG program, that is the MKb35, but the StG idea was killed by Hitler to favour the faction of MP.
• Later, due to harsh truth in Eastern Front, Germany ram up the MKb program which was already corrupted, and in fact Hitler force the MP design to have performance of StG, which is ultimately unsuccessful.

Done. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sholokhov: Do you know why that might be your last post before a temporary or permanent "ban" (block)? It isn't because a cabal of evil editors are out to hide the WP:TRUTH. You are making wild accusations (which you apparently believe are true) that have no supporting evidence and refuse to listen to anyone. We are not trying to "dishonor" the AK series; in fact my personal favorite assault rifle (after QBZ95) is the AK74. I understand that you must have a lot of national pride, but you can't just ignore the facts to make Russia look better. So AK47 is based off of the StG44, StG44 was only ever called MP44 to hide it from Hitler (it was never an actual machine pistol), and the StG44 was a very successful weapon. By the way товарищ, have you ever shot a StG44 yourself? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The following is what the Russians have to say about the origins of the AK-47...."The history of the world-known gun (AK-47) started on July 15th, 1943, when in a captured complex—an MP-43 gun (Sturmgewehr) and cartridge—were demonstrated at a meeting of the arms committee. Chief designer Nikolay Elizarov and chief engineer Pavel Ryazanov created the Soviet "interim cartridge" (M43 7.62x39mm) within a very short period of time. The technological support was provided by Boris Syomin. After that, scientists started working on a new fire arms systems (SKS, RPD & AK-47) for that cartridge." The History of Kalashnikov Gun. Pravda. 02.08.2003. http://english.pravda.ru/history/02-08-2003/3461-kalashnikov-0/

The following is what Mikhail Kalashikov had to say about the origins of the AK-47..."I was in the hospital, and a soldier in the bed beside me asked: ‘Why do our soldiers have only one rifle for two or three of our men, when the Germans have automatics?’ So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. It was called an Avtomat Kalashnikova, the automatic weapon of Kalashnikov—AK—and it carried the date of its first manufacture, 1947." An interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov, Robert Fisk, The Independent (centrist), London, England. April 22, 2001. http://www.worldpress.org/cover5.htm

In another interview Mikhail Kalashikov said the following..."I sleep well. It's the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence," Kalashnikov said Friday at a ceremony marking the birth of the rifle, whose initials stand for "Avtomat Kalashnikov." It was before he started designing the gun that he slept badly, worried about the superior weapons that Nazi soldiers were using with grisly effectiveness against the Red Army in World War II. He saw them at close range himself, while fighting on the front lines. While hospitalized with wounds after a Nazi shell hit his tank in the 1941 battle of Bryansk, Kalashnikov decided to design an automatic rifle combining the best features of the American M1 and the German StG44. "Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer," said Kalashnikov, frail but sharp at age 87. "I always wanted to construct agriculture machinery." AK-47 Inventor Doesn't Lose Sleep Over Havoc Wrought With His Invention An interview with Mikhail Kalashnikov. Published July 06, 2007. Associated Press http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/07/06/ak-47-inventor-doesnt-lose-sleep-over-havoc-wrought-with-his-invention/

Sholokhov is an incompetent POV pusher. His revisionist history is completely refuted by the Pravda story and the words of Mikhail Kalashikov himself. I motion that a ANI be filed and that his edit privileges should be revoked. All in favor........--RAF910 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That may not be necessary. To his credit, he hasn't tried to reintroduce any of this into article space and as a consensus has begun to form here that does not support him...it may be about over. Editors may want to peruse his contributions to make sure that anything contentious is not still out there.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

This page has numerous cases of citation overkill and needless repetition. Citations should be trimmed/merged and repetitions removed. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree...However, the number of references is unfortunately necessary, because as the page history and discussions above illustrates, there are editors who refuse to acknowledge that the German StG 44 was the worlds first assault rifle. These editors routinely attempt to rewrite the article to fit there own point of view. They are willing misrepresent references, to discredit the references as "western propaganda", to rewrite history and to vandalize the page to get their way. Also, because of the seemingly controversial nature of the topic, there are editors who use this page as a political soap-box. This of course requires legitimate editors to expend time and effort to correct the page.--RAF910 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Very well, no complaints from me. I know the controversial matter of what the first assault rifle was, and frankly I myself am unversed on the matter so I refrained from saying anything about it and instead simply pointed out the citation overkill issue, but what you say makes sense. Well, keep up the good work. Cheers! --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Too Much BS on this article!

First, the U.S. Army/DoD published the first technical definition of the phrase "Assault Rifle" as far as I can find, it is the only definition that has been placed into LAW in any country, let alone three, which it has; America, and by definition NATO, Japan and England. By this legal definition, the Arisaka 6,5mm chambered Federov, was not an AR because of it's Caliber/cartridge case size and power and the .30 Caliber M-2 Carbine was an AR by every meaning of the many other definitions. See ammo chart below to see that the .30 caliber Carbine cartridge was easily "Effective" depending on the definition of that word to well over 500 yards depending on energy to kill, or wound, or to well over 300 Meters by trajectory. Then there is the part of the Army Definition, as opposed to the one found in Comic books and other secondary sources about "effective automatic fire", not just effective fire, more on this later. If the fire must be effective automatic fire, then Neither the StG-44, or the AK-47 are effective assault rifles as neither one of them can hit much of anything at 300 yards, or meters as you like. But some folks think that just scarring the hell out of them with suppressive fire is ok, then they both count as ARs. But then so do all the full power battle rifles with select fire switches. But the .30 Caliber Carbine can by virtue of it's anemic cartridge be very controllable in a superior way to any of the above rifles such to get many more HITS, not just scarring the hell out them! The StG-44 was the first AR to be put in the field by any Army! That is not open to dispute, but it was and still is a piece of crapola! Look up it's many defects as documented by those who know it for a fact! On the other hand, the American M-1/2 Carbine was and still is one of the sweetest rifles around! Which any knowledgeable shooter would rather have than the StG-44 if his life depended on it! ( Rather than being allowed to take a much more formidable rifle from the M-16 family of Assault Rifles!)

Ballistics Charts Back Cartridge Information Index Number Cartridge Type Weight (grs.) Bullet Style Primer No. Ballistic Coefficient R30CAR Remington® Express® 110 Soft Point 6 1/2 0.166 L30CR1 UMC® 110 Metal Case 6 1/2 0.166

Velocity (ft/sec) Cartridge Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 1990 1567 1236 1035 923 842 UMC® 110 1990 1567 1236 1035 923 842

Energy (ft-lbs) Cartridge_Type Bullet Muzzle 100 200 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 967 600 373 262 208 173 UMC® 110 967 600 373 262 208 173

Short-Range Trajectory Cartridge Type Bullet 50 100 150 200 250 300 Remington® Express® 110 0.6 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 UMC® 110 0.6 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6

Long-Range Trajectory Cartridge Type Bullet 100 150 200 250 300 400 500 Remington® Express® 110 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 -116.6 -225.5 UMC® 110 zero -4.2 -12.9 -27.2 -48.6 -116.6 -225.5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.153.99 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assault rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130102110222/http://www.saf.org:80/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm to http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

fully automatic vs selective fire

I noticed an incorrect bit stating that assault rifles are always fully automatic capable. The m16 and m4 have instead used 3 round burst instead of automatic. A better term would be selective fire, which is what is linked to anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.122.184.152 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The intro sentence was originally written as...

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

The "fully automatic" term was added later. Therefore, I do not have a problem with removing the term. As I also find it somewhat redundant and technically incorrect (as stated above).--RAF910 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The SturmGewehr being the first assault rifle. (Sorry if this is already a topic)

I read on the page for the SturmGewehr page that it was the first modern assault rifle, I'm just saying that that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benners88 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've recently read about the Fedorov Avtomat. Isn't that technically the first assault rifle? I noticed it being mentioned above, but I don't get what the conclusion is. Is it or is it not, and why? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Fedorov Avtomat doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle since it was chambered for the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka "full power" rifle cartridge, and not an intermediate cartridge. Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You can argue that the first "assault rifle" appeared in California in recent decades, because it's the first time there was a legal definition of what "assault rifle" actually meant. Otherwise, just what do we mean by the term? Invented? In service? In bulk service? With the performance of a military rifle? As there aren't many of such (really just the AK47 / AKM in full calibre, and that's a short intermediate cartridge) as it's hard to control, most are about .23 calibre rather than .303. But how small can it go and still be a rifle, rather than a sub-machine gun?

The Avtomat has the problem that it's using a pretty useless cartridge, giving it the performance of a machine pistol. Nor can it use anything more powerful, owing to the overheating problem. Mostly though, it's just the limited numbers made - 100× as many Sturmgewehr than Avtomat.

I would disagree Thomas' point that the Avtomat cartridge is too large, as the 6.5 Arisaka cartridge is so low powered, even though it's a large case. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the case and the weight that is the main difference between a rifle cartridge and an intermediate cartridge, not the power. A smaller and lighter case means that the soldier can carry more rounds (for the same weight), which he'll need if he is to have any practical use for an automatic weapon... Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

cartridge power is important because it enables better handling of automatic fire.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

POV discussion

This article is not written from a neutral point of view. Reliable sources are being removed to support a narrative that assault rifles were developed in ww2 germany and that the stg-44 was some kind of revolutionary rifle, that the stg-44 pioneered the over the barrel gas system, and that the 7.92 kurz was the first intermediate round, along with some other non-neutral assertions. On the contrary, numerous reliable sources support the fact that development of intermediate cartridges date back to ~1895 or earlier, that the 7.92 kurz was a direct development of a previous swiss intermediate cartridge, that there are examples of assault rifles and over the barrel gas systems before world war 2, and that development of assault rifles occurred concurrently as a logical mix of the attributes of common smgs and lmgs and this development took place concurrently in many countries such as the US, great britain, russia, as well as pre-ww2 germany. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/05/americas-first-assault-rifle-designed-world-war/ http://www.wideopenspaces.com/americas-first-assault-rifle-the-burton-1917-light-machine-rifle/TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• The article is not POV since it is written from a mainstream point of view (with the mainstream point of view being that the StG-44 was the first assault rifle since it was the first firearm to combine all of the defining characteristics in a single weapon). The one who is guilty of POV editing is you, for insisting on the "Burton Balloon Buster" being the first assault rifle, a weapon that doesn't fit the mainstream definition of "assault rifle", was never intended to fill the role of an assault rifle, and never even entered service as an infantry weapon. And then on top of that adding a POV-tag to the article for not getting your way here... Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is OR. It's not for me to say anything. My opinions are irrelevant. My point of view is irrelevant. Just as your opinion, no matter how much you bold it, has no place in a wikipedia article. Your pov is just as irrelevant as my pov. Reliable sources say that different rifles were the first AR. Reliable sources say that the AR wasn't developed in WW2 germany. Reliable sources say that the 7.92 kurz was not the first intermediate cartridge and that the stg-44 was not the first assault rifle with an over the barrel gas system, and was not the first rifle to have any of those three features. and nor was it the first rifle to share all three of those features. Please follow the instructions of the POV tag and do not remove it until the conditions to remove the tag have been met.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. If you look hard enough you can with all probability find a source that supports any given view, no matter how fringe it is, which is why we go by what the mainstream view is (i.e. whatever view is predominant in reliable sources). Thomas.W ^talk 14:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" William B. Edwards, prominent editor of a well respected firearms publication is a prominent adherent to the view that the 1917 winchester-burton rifle was the first assault rifle. I've also linked several other sources supporting it. This isn't the flat earth society.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a single individual "gun writer" who holds that view, and the views of a single individual does not trump other sources. Thomas.W ^talk 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's 9 different sources, and that's not how it works. Wikipedia doesn't arbitrarily decide, for instance, the nature versus nurture biological debate by adding up the number of sources on each sides then suppress one side and only present the other. Some of the references are even misapplied. The atlantic article doesn't mention 7.92 or kurz but this article cites it to support a false claim about the 7.92 kurz. The janes reference cited doesn't support the false claim either. The lone sentry reference doesn't support it. The US army source doesn't support it. And the pogo source doesn't support it. I don't have access to the book article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If multiple websites (some of them more blogs than anything else) just quote the opinion of a single individual, William Edwards, they do not count as multiple different sources, but as a single source, your Mr. Edwards, and his opinion does not outweight other sources. This quote from one of the websites you linked to: "Germany during the Second World War did not invent the concept, nor were they the first to execute it or put it into practice, but the weapon their engineers created synthesized a number of concepts and design practices into one entity that heavily influenced virtually all weapons of its kind thereafter – and Adolf Hitler gave it a name that stuck.", sums it up pretty well, the StG-44 was the first weapon to combine all the defining characteristics into a single weapon, making it the first assault rifle per the mainstream definition of it, which is why everyone here opposes your changes. Thomas.W ^talk 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Only one of the websites quotes edwards AFAIK. The question is not about one opinion "outweighing" others. The question is whether the article is suppressing legitimate information supported by reliable sources. If that quote that the STG-44 was in no way original and that the AR was developed before ww2 outside germany, but that it could be argued that the stg-44 is considered by some to have been a seminal rifle that had a small influence on the AK-47's ammunition that ended up being a dead end that was quickly discarded, then why does the article contradict that in several ways? Why, if the quote you support says that germany didn't invent the AR in ww2, does the article contradict that quote that you support? Why does the article contradict that source when it says that the first AR was developed outside germany, and that the concepts were developed outside germany? US development of the assault rifle happened separately from the development of the StG-44. The US developed the .276 intermediate cartridge for an automatic rifle after ww1 and decided to adopt it before it's adoption was vetoed for budgetary reasons.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The .276 Pedersen was a full size rifle cartridge (longer/larger than the 7.62x51mm), developing as much muzzle energy as many rifle cartridges that were in use in the rest of the world at that time did. And it was never adopted by the US Army, or any other branch of service for that matter. Thomas.W ^talk 18:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

it's a 9g bullet vs the 8g bullet from a 7.62x39mm and it goes a little slower. It's only ~330 joules higher energy. A .256 cartridge was also in the running. The broader point is that there was no point when the US military said "our ammunition should be like the ammunition from the stg-44." Not to mention that the ammunition that the US eventually moved to and that the rest of the world quickly adopted was not at all based on the 7.92 kurz, but, instead, was independently developed by the US.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sloppy homework, as usual. The standard load for the .276 Pedersen was a 7mm 125-126 grain (sources vary) bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,740 fps (= appprox 2,100 ft-lbf at the muzzle), while the standard load for the AK-47 is a .30-cal 122.9 grain bullet at 2,356 fps (= approx 1,500 ft-lbf at the muzzle). Meaning that the .276 Pedersen had a slightly heavier bullet, considerably higher muzzle velocity, about 40% more muzzle energy, and a much longer range (thanks to both considerably more power and a smaller diameter bullet with much better ballistic performance), i.e. a performance fully comparable to many foreign full-size rifle calibers of that time. As well as the same physical size as foreign rifle calibers. Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The wiki article says 2,400 fps, not that it's particularly important.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We use consensus to decide what we say, and not all sources are equal. Nor do we suppress alternate views, as you imply above, TeeTylerToe. WP:NPOV applies. None of the weapons you hold up for contemplation meet all the modern criteria of assault rifle, and importantly none were ever given that name. The StG is explicitly named as such, was mass-produced, widely employed in combat, and is an indisputable member of that vast class of weapons called assault rifles, best exemplified by the AK47 and M16. We might have various sources describing precursor weapons as "the first assault rifle" but these sources conflict with one another in the weapons they describe as such, and in other cases we must resort to synthesis to include them in the class, by describing their various characteristics.

I think you are going out on a limb by pushing for various odd weapons, none of them ever employed in the infantry assault rifle role, to be named as the first assault rifle. Consensus here seems to be decidedly against you, and your continued efforts to push your own opinion on others increasingly disruptive. Repetition levels are getting very high, for example. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With this reference https://warisboring.com/the-balloon-killing-incendiary-machine-gun-remains-a-mystery-7cb29ce7bf16 that's ten references that support the edits I've made. Please tell me how these views aren't being suppressed. What if the stg-44 hadn't been called the sturmgewehr? What would that have changed other than being the first rifle to be called the sturmgewehr, after the 1917 browning had been called the assault phase rifle? The ~ 1 division was equipped with the stg-44. Roughly 400 divisions were equipped with the AK-47. ~426k stg-44s were produced, over 100 million AKs were produced. I am not combining statements from more than one source to support anything that I'm arguing. If anything it's the frankenstein intro of this article made out of patches of several different sources into this stg-44=hitler's katana narrative. What is it that you're claiming I'm using synthesis to support? I posted 10 sources that all say that the winchester-burton rifle was the first assault rifle. How is that synthesis?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm calling troll at this point. You've made your points, they've been rejected, you're not going to find much support for any edits you might make along these lines. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

thomas w pov tag reverting

thomas w started this discussion on my talk page for some strange reason but I'm responding to it here. You quoted the POV policy saying that majority opinions have to be presented and minority opinions need to be presented as well, but they need to be identified as minority opinions. "A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views.". Per policy both the mainstream and minority views are presented in the article. Thomas W then made the argument, in his own words, "The article represents the mainstream view, and thus can't possibly be POV (see quote above), which means it should never have been added."... this seems to be some kind of misinterpretation of pov policy. As said, POV policy, assuming that this is how we're approaching this, says not to only present the mainstream view, it says present both, but indicate which is the minority if that's supported. Thomas w also makes the point that he can't see what the neutrality problems are. I don't understand this, but the neutrality problems are that there is a bias in what edits are allowed and what references are allowed. The tabula rasa hitler's katana narrative is being favored and all others are being suppressed. Specifically ~10 sources supporting the narrative that assault rifles were developed in many countries independently. Generally "Germany during the Second World War did not invent the concept, nor were they the first to execute it or put it into practice, but the weapon their engineers created synthesized a number of concepts and design practices into one entity that heavily influenced virtually all weapons of its kind thereafter – and Adolf Hitler gave it a name that stuck.". His third point is also false.TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• See my post on TeeTylerToe's talk page for why I have reverted his repeated frivolous addition of the POV-tag. Thomas.W ^talk 16:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't make an argument supporting your third revert. Please follow the guidelines set by the POV tag and stop removing the tag in violations of the tag's instructions.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

???? I haven't made three reverts within 24 hours, the only one who has done that is you. Which is why you were given a 3RR-warning. Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why we have to go over this, but one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&diff=729794873&oldid=729789571 two https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&diff=729748015&oldid=729696589 three https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&diff=729334009&oldid=729333559 today's letter is K for katana. Please follow the tag's instructions.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase "within 24 hours" might be useful to contemplate. For about 24 hours, maybe. --Pete (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

We have officially gone beyond 3RR. Any attempt to restore the POV tag is by definition Edit Warring. It does not matter if it is made today, tomorrow or next week. --RAF910 (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Almost everything presented by this article is fact is disputed at best and an outright falsehood at worst. The romantic AK history of a farmer-soldier who beat his plows into rifles is more fairy tale than fact. Russia had developed and was developing several different rifles along the same lines as the AK-47 which required a milled receiver, making it useless for it's stated purpose, which makes sense, because the miracle AK-47 that allowed russia to arm it's military with AKs overnight wasn't able to actually replace the bolt action rifles, SMGs and SKS' for about a decade. Similarly this article's romantic waxings on the stg-44 is half fantasy and half outright lies. The point of an encyclopedia is to weed out this PR spin. Development of ARs had been taking place in the US, England, France, Germany, and Russia decades before WW2 and none of it was this revolutionary pablum/dross. None of it was as exciting as this much to perfect story drummed out by soviet PR hacks, or this too interesting story about the Mk-42(G) being developed behind hitler's back as the MP-44 only for hitler his very self to swoon, and give it the name assault rifle. Why does this article ignore the ~1916-1918 development of the "assault phase rifle" name in favor of this fairy tale? Where is the mention of the 1907 winchester SLR? The 1917 winchester-burton? The Federov Avtomat? The Ribeyrolle CM 1918? Why does this article perpetuate this lie that the development of the assault rifle was revolutionary and not evolutionary? Who would believe that a rifle that's just the offspring of light machine guns and sub-machine guns was somehow revolutionary? Why is this romantic hitler dross favored over the actual truth? Not even of the truth about the 1907 winchester SLR, or the truth about the federov avtomat, or the truth about the ribeyrolle, but this article even by omission denies the truth about the stg-44 itself, and the supposed revolutionary first assault rifle. Before the stg-44 was the MKb-42(h), the machine carbine 1942 (H). Before that were three Mk-42 contestents. Before that was a walther MK, and before that was the vollmer m35 from ~1935. Just look at the stg-44 article if you don't believe me as long as certain busy hands haven't corrupted that article as well. So why does the STG-44 article say that the StG-44 was the development of a long line of similar rifles in germany, but this article says that the StG-44 was a revolutionary rifle that pioneered new concepts? Yea you can find plenty of references like a "the atlantic" article that eat this hitler's wunderwaffen bs hook line and sinker, but that doesn't erase that fact that just the german AR program dates back to 1935 or earlier and the AR programs in other countries date back decades earlier than that. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21631/forgotten-weapons-americas-first-assault-rifle/ Winchester Repeating Arms Company By Herb Houze 978-0873497862, "The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR."TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

So what weapons did the 1917 Burton Light Machine Rifle lead to?--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The Ribeyrolle CM 1918? Arguably the interbellum .276/.256 Pendersen select-fire intermediate round rifle? It probably influenced american gun development as well as gun development in france particularly, but also russia, england, and germany. It's role was as a stepping stone, just as that's the role shared by every other rifle. The StG-44 was just a stepping stone whose influence on, for instance, the AK-47 has been greatly overstated.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Given TTT's record on Wikipedia, and his performance on this article, I suggest that he gain consensus for any edits before making them. Consensus for this purpose being defined as a minimum of one other editor in concurrence. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Good thing I spent all that time developing consensus with Herr Gruber, as I've mentioned before.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Put up your edits and see if they gain any backing. Or you can argue with other editors. The way you are going isn't looking too positive for a long and productive career here, just quietly. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy discussing this. I've been discussing this on this talk page it looks like two days shy of a month. The problem comes when a group of editors stonewall edits supported by a perfectly RS book, an NRA journal, popular mechanics, and eight other sources. Editors sticking their heads in the sands making wild accusations about flat earth society and stuff like that when I mention the fact that the term assault phase rifle existed a quarter of a century before assault rifle and maybe give that a mention. Pop history about the Assault rifle is disputed at best. If you think that I'm the one that wanted editing this article to be this counterproductive you've got this backwards. Not to mention, I mean, ffs, suppressing even a tag that says something is being discussed? How do you defend that? I couldn't. Suppressing it when the instructions clearly say "don't suppress this."? You explain that to me.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you give some thought to my suggestion, please? Pitching yourself as the sole proponent of eternal truth against a cabal of misguided fools rarely works on Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Pistol grips

While I realize that not all assault rifle have pistol-grips (AC-556, Type 63, etc.). A pistol grip is a defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Therefore, I would like to add the following sentence (or words to that effect) to the Characteristic section.

Most, but not all, Assault Rifles have pistol-grips type butt-stocks.

Please respond below with pro or con comments and suggestion.--RAF910 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? If so, go ahead. Felsic2 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to object to this proposed edit on the grounds that a pistol grip and a buttstock are two separate things. It's like saying a truck has a "stick-shift type steering wheel." -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway:...Are you opposed to the wording or to the idea in general?--RAF910 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No objection to the idea, though I think "many" would be better than "most" as I'm not aware of any authority establishing that a majority of such weapons have pistol grips. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

How about the following sentence (or words to that effect).

Many, but not all Assault Rifles have pistol grips, which is generally considered a defining characteristic of this class of firearm. Although, not all rifles that have pistol grips are considered assault rifles.

As you can see, while I would like to add this information to the article, I am afraid that it may cause more confusion than its worth. Therefore, I will make no attempt to add this info until all the pros and cons have been discussed and I see a clear consensus to do so.--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Highly biased source

• One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called "assault weapons" is to foster confusion. As stated previously, "the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm." They have been further hoodwinked by the television charades of people like New York's former Governor Mario Cuomo talking about semi-automatic firearms while the camera shows a full automatic firing. Fully automatic weapons have been strictly regulated and registered since 1934. Real assault weapons are controlled by the 1934 law and by laws in most states. There is no need for a new law on semi-automatic firearms. However, the anti-gunners responsible for the hoax have continued to perpetuate it by exploiting public confusion.
• The Great Assault Weapon Hoax Joseph P. Tartaro

This seems like a highly biased source, more of a polemic essay than a legitimate and reliable source. I see that editors have sometimes objected to sourcs like Mother Jones, but this is much more strident than articles there. I think we should remove it, or at least attribute the view to the author. Felsic2 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the tone is less than analytic, and feels POV; I'd certainly prefer a better-worded source. In any case, I wouldn't use just this source to speak in WP's voice, per WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Technical definition versus English language definition

Language evolves over time. All the sources saying an assault rifle has to be select fire are older than the people citing them. Meanwhile modern, current, mainstream, sources do not include the requirement for automatic in their definition - such as Meriam webster "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.", and dictionary.com includes a secondary definition "a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire." President Obama used this definition in his recent address.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, in the English language, the term 'assault rifle' has expanded to include the 'technically incorrect' of civilian semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. This usage of the term warrants mention in the first paragraph, if only to explain the technical inaccuracy of its usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right. The NRA doesn't have a monopoly on defining firearms-related terms. One of the sources used is the Encyclopedia Britannica, says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition." So even the article's own sources contradict the narrow definition that some editors insist upon. Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 11th commandment written by... was it moses on god's command wasn't "The definition of an assault rifle is bla bla bla". So, ever since that enormous oversight (who is this god person anyway?) I don't really know where an authoritative definition of "assault rifle" would come from. Take, for instance, the huge argument about which was the first "assault rifle". With some rifles having burst but not full auto some people just say select fire, but the semi auto only M27 seems to prove that even that is not a hard requirement which isn't a particularly shocking revelation. In the end, different experts probably have different definitions. It would be deceptive to say or imply that there is any one set in stone definition or that what does and does not fall into the assault rifle category, or that it is not subject to debate. Some editors might try to use original research on this page to argue that one definition is the one true definition or another definition is the one true definition or that there exists one true definition. I haven't looked into it, but presumably all that can be said is that the first "assault rifle" is subject to debate. Could it have been, for instance, the m1 carbine? The Vollmer M35? Where is the exact line between smg and aw ammunition? etc.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the definition does not require a gun to be selective fire to be an assault rifle. The term is very commonly used for any semi-automatic rifle of a military design or origin.--Dmol (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That's one part of it, yes. But the thing is, everything about the AR definition is subjective. An AR is a rifle that fires an "intermediate" round. A round is made up of the case, the propellant/charge, the bullet and the primer. It's obviously not the primer. Some famous examples use the bullet from an 8mm traditional rifle round, so it's not the bullet. So the variables you're looking at on the "a girl walks into a bear's house and finds three bowls of porridge, one too hot, one too cold, and one just right, and she also finds one round that's too "small", one round that's too "big", and what round's "just right"". The only levers you can change to change a round that's too big, say, 7.62x51, or 8mm mauser rifle to one that's "just right" are the size of the case and the grains of propellant. For instance, take the ww2 M1 carbine round. Where does it fall? Is it too small? Is it just right? Who can you ask to give you a definitive answer? Nobody. It's subjective. Was the ww2 M1 carbine an assault rifle? Who can you ask to give you a definitive answer? Nobody? Was the M2? It's subjective.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article...The article very specifically defines what is and what is not an assault rifle. Also, the article already has the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section. Which already explains the differences between the Technical definition versus Political definition.--RAF910 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So who's to say if .30 carbine is a smg/pistol cartridge or "intermediate"? 5.45x39mm? Is the m27 iar an "assault weapon"? Who's to say? Who draws the line that distinguishes what is and isn't an AR? I know that the version in the article now was reached simply by an editor using various references they personally agreed with ignoring the references they disagreed with.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• The definition used in the article is the standard technical/military definition, in common use throughout the world. People can have whatever opinion they want about anything, including about what an "assault rifle" is or isn't, but Wikipedia isn't a politically correct "encyclopaedia" aimed at pleasing people in the US who feel that all guns of all kinds are eeevil, and repeatedly try to widen the definition of "assault rifle" to include everything from a BB-gun to a hunting rifle so that they seem to be eeevil too, but an uncensored international English language encyclopaedia with information that is correct, whether some people like it or not. Meaning that the only definition of "assault rifle" that belongs in this article is the technically correct one, that is the one that is in the article now. Period. Thomas.W ^talk 11:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The definitions of words are not set in stone, as an earlier poster said. Meanings and usage change. The common definition of "assault rifle", including the one at the Encyclopedia Britannica, includes weapons that are available with either semi-automatic or select-fire actions. While you seem to be attacking people, including editors, for using the term it's used even by a policeman who was previously in active service in Iraq.[4] Don't use broad brushes and outlandish claims to tar others over a simple content dispute. All commonly used definitions of the term should be included. Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use new terms or definitions until they're so thoroughly established that they're mainstream, not fringe. The very wide definition of assault rifle that you seem to promote is mainly used in the US, and only used by a limited segment of the population, and thus doesn't belong here. Thomas.W ^talk 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that the reference to some semi-automatic rilfes as "assault rifles" is a violation of WP:FRINGE? Or is there a different policy you're talking about when you discuss what "Wikipedia doesn't" do? Felsic2 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Referring to semi-automatic rifles as 'assault rifles' is fringe in the sense that it doesn't fit the established, mainstream, definition of 'assault rifle'. And as long as it isn't the mainstream definition, i.e. the internationally by far most widely used definition, it doesn't belong in the article. And please don't make the common mistake of confusing 'assault rifle' with 'assault weapon', a US legal term for firearms with certain features that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article... Thomas.W ^talk 11:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The right way to do it would simply be to have a sentence, paragraph, or section devoted to the civilian usage of the term. How about "In civilian usage, 'assault rifle' may also refer to semi-automatic rifles of similar construction". Or, "Assault rifles are sold for the civilian market with semi-automatic actions". Felsic2 (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It would definitely not be "the right way to do it". We use the correct definition of the term, period. And assault rifles are definitely not sold with semi-automatic actions on the civilian market, semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles but aren't assault rifles (since they're semi-automatic only) are sold on the civilian market, though. And stop trying to sneak biased anti-gun terminology into articles here. Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The very first source in the article, Encylopedia Britannica, says so.[5]. Is it wrong?

Please don't smear me with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. There's no place for that here. Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Encyclopaedia Britannica is partly user generated, and in many cases of dubious value as a source. And the rest of your post is just plain silly, I haven't made any personal attack, and never do, all I did was ask you to stop your repeated attempts to change the definition of assault rifle away from the long-standing technically correct definition that is used now to a very broad definition that is commonly used in anti-gun circles, in order to make semi-automatic rifles look as more of a menace than they are (see another post of mine a few steps up in this thread), and has no place here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A general-audience dictionary is not a valid source for technical definitions, nor is it intended to be. As a casual example, Merriam-Webster defines "gasoline" as "a volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture used as a fuel especially for internal combustion engines and usually blended from several products of natural gas and petroleum:" going by this definition, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil are all gasoline.

Meanwhile, the Brittanica article only says what is claimed if it is imagined the definition in the introduction ("...and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire...") is somehow overruled by the final paragraph. In context it clearly means that civilian sales of weapons based on military assault rifles generally require one of the key features of an assault rifle to be removed from them. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica citation was added six years ago by Faceless Enemy, and it doesn't look like anyone's complained about it during that time.[6] How come you guys are keeping that source if you think it's inaccurate and unreliable?

The Heckler & Koch HK416 is an assault rifle. It is produced in a semi-automatice variant for the civilian market. The FN FNC is an assault rifle, which is also produced in a semi-automatic variant. Ditto for FN F2000. The Bushmaster M4-type Carbine is a semi-automatic rifle that's categorized as an assault rifle and included in the List of assault rifles.

To Thomas.W - I'm not "sneaking" anything. I've never edited this article. Please retract that false accusation. And don't accuse me of bias again. Felsic2 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Felsic, it's only incorrect if you deliberately read it in a way where the opening paragraph contradicts the final one; it's not very accurate anyway (maximum size of an AR mag is 30 rounds) but it's fine for a basic definition. Semi-auto rifles are not ARs, those are listed as ARs because one of their versions is an AR. FN SCAR and Beretta ARX160 are listed under 7.62mm weapons and 5.56mm weapons even though no gun in either line fires both at the same time. The FB MSBS and Galil ACE are listed as both a battle rifle and an assault rifle, even though a rifle can't be both of those at the same time. FN SCAR also includes the categories "designated marksman rifle" and "assault rifle," which don't both apply to the weapon in question (the FN SSR, a 7.62mm battle rifle). The A-91 has two listed calibres and includes the category "grenade launcher" because the article include the weapon's UBGL; that doesn't mean the bullets the rifle fires are grenades. Steyr AUG, IMI Galil, Vektor R4, SA80 etc are listed under light machine guns even though only one version of those weapons is a machine gun. Also it would help if you actually read the articles you're citing rather than looking for "gotcha!" exceptions, given that Bushmaster M4-type Carbine says it "can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability," ie, that there is a variant of the semi-auto rifle that is an actual assault rifle, and the article lists five military or LE users who presumably have the auto-capable AR version.

You will not find a single book on firearms history and classification that supports your assertion that semi-auto rifles can be regarded as assault rifles. To randomly grab a book off my shelf, on the other hand, The World Encyclopedia of Rifles and Machine Guns: An Illustrated Guide to 500 Firearms says of "assault rifle:" "It was a name that would later be used for all post-war infantry automatic weapons designed to fire the compact intermediate cartridge." Copyright 2007, since you like claiming this is an old definition. Also (since I just found the damn thing) The Book of Guns & Gunsmiths "The assault rifle used a smaller cartridge than the normal infantry rifle, but which was still a good deal more powerful than a pistol cartridge and which demanded some form of breech locking. It was light and handy and had the ability to deliver either single shots or automatic fire." That's a fair bit older (1977) but has the advantage you can't possibly argue it's politically slanted since both the authors, if the language of the quote itself doesn't give it away, are British. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The article already has the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section....It is clear that Felsic2 wants to fundamentally change the article to match his point-of-view. However, he knows that he does not have a consensus do so. And, if he makes the changes on his own, they will be reverted, there will be an edit war, he will lose and he will be blocked...So, it seems that he is desperately trying to get "the camels nose under the tent". Well, I say NO. It's a short word, easy to spell, means the same thing in dozens of languages. The answer is NO--RAF910 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a very aggressive attack on someone who's just leaving reasonable comments on a talk page. Cut it out. Felsic2 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the SKS an AR? Is the M27 iar? What exactly is a "battle rifle"? What exactly is an "intermediate round"? Some rifles commonly labeled "Assault rifle" have select fire that includes full auto but not burst, some have burst but not full auto. Do these newer burst rifles qualify? When did the definition of AR change to accommodate these newer burst rifles? When did the definition of AR stop changing to accommodate developments like the development of the m27 iar? What sources are accepted as being qualified to define which rifles are ARs and which and what sources aren't? What reliable source says that there is no debate over which round is intermediate and which isn't or which rifle is an AR or which isn't, or which rifle was the first AR? If god did come down to earth to give man a precise, definitive definition of the AR then it should just be a matter of bookkeeping to determine which rifle was the first AR, which rounds are intermediate, and to settle all the disputes about ARs. So, someone please tell me when man was visited by god so that god could pass to man the precise definition of what is and isn't an AR.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Per Lead, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Since we do have a "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section in the article, there does need to be something about that in the Lead that summarizes that section. It should make it clear that the two terms aren't synonymous, but are sometimes used interchangeably. It shouldn't overwhelm the Lead, but something does need to be there. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Burst fire is fully automatic as far as the operating principles of the weapon are concerned, in that the gun performs multiple automated cycles of function with a single pull of the trigger, there's just a further mechanism that disconnects the firing mechanism after a set number of shots. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that the M27 IAR is semi-only, it's select-fire with a cyclic rate of 700-850rpm. Do you really think an "infantry automatic rifle" would not be automatic? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusion. A couple of things. Should this article cover the debate over the exact definition of the AR? I'm not specifically talking about full auto vs select fire vs semi, but the debate over which was the first true ar and so on. But also, the Thompson SMG article says that the germans developed sturmtruppen tactics with the MP-18 in ww1 and that US marines developed 4 man SMG fireteams to replace 9 man rifle fireteams in the interbellum period in banana wars and so on. The MP-18 article says that the allies didn't appreciate SMGs until ww2, and the lede in this article says that germany developed their sturmtruppen tactics in ww2 around the StG 44... It's a mess. Also, where is the fedorov avtomat mentioned? Was it a proto assault rifle? Is it an assault rifle? Is 6.5x50mm an intermediate round, or is it not close enough to the 5.56x45mm? Avtomats have come to be associated with assault rifles. Why aren't they mentioned? Was the 6mm lee-navy an intermediate round in fact or in spirit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

6.5x50mm is tricky because while the Arisaka round was relatively low-powered, it was still issued as a round for full-sized infantry rifles, so wasn't a purpose-designed intermediate cartridge like 7.92x33mm Kurz. The real reason the StG-44 is regarded as the "first" assault rifle is twofold: first, the term didn't exist before it, and second, it was the first true assault rifle to be produced in significant quantities (the Fedorov Avtomat was not). It does surprise me that it isn't even mentioned as a prior example of the principles the StG embodied, though. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

--RAF910 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the term "fully automatic" not distinguish a mode of fire that is not restrained to an arbitrary burst> There being automatic fire which covers both burst and fully automatic fire? 6.5x50 was designed to be smaller, lighter, and less powerful than other battle rifle rounds. What about .351 wsl? Where is it chiseled in stone that one is and one isn't? Where do these "strict" definitions come from and how widely accepted are they? Also, it's becoming clear that the hitler's wunderwaffen narrative is almost entirely false except perhaps for it being the source of the name itself. Also that the StG-44 wasn't the first assault rifle, it itself being a refinement of the MK-42 finalist.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. When you're talking about fire modes full-auto and burst are distinct (largely because you can have both on the same gun and you need to distinguish between them somehow), but burst fire requires a fully automatic firearm action to perform it. A fully automatic action is any where a single pull of the trigger produces multiple cycles of function, and the integral burst limiter is basically the same as the operator taking their finger off the trigger in mechanical terms.

There is an element of "I know it when I see it" to intermediate rounds, but it's not so much the dimensions of the round as the purpose for which it was developed: .351WSL was developed as a hunting round and 6.5 Arisaka as a round for full-sized rifles, while 7.93 Kurz was specifically developed as an intermediate between rifle and pistol for a gun designed to occupy the space between battle rifle and SMG. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an orthodxoy that's being defended here. Let's just report what all of the sources say. Felsic2 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, not an "orthodxoy," those are the worst. Reliable sources on firearms terminology (ie, not the dictionary or sloppy quoting in a news article) give a clear definition, so we'll report that. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quoting the atlantic pretty heavilyTeeTylerToe (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Word ownership

Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Word ownership talks about this issue.

• A common basis for prolonged NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it
• ...in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these problems can be solved through what we call disambiguation.
• At the same time, the fact that you disagree with the way a word is used or defined does not automatically imply that there is a POV problem. You must also ensure that your assertions about alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using appropriate attribution and citation.

So, it sounds like we shouldn't rely solely on one group of "experts" to determine the scope of the term. All reasonably signficant usages with decent sources should be included. Felsic2 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, Felsic, that's not what that means at all. This is an article about a piece of technology with traits determined by the people who manufacture and use that piece of technology, and so it should use the definition which those people use, not the one that's most convenient for your personal political agenda. Experts on firearms are the foremost experts on the terminology associated with them; your argument would also force us to add the creationist claim that a scientific theory is "just a theory" in the vernacular sense to the article about scientific theory, because there's a lot of sources that repeat that nonsense. Oddly, since none are respected experts on science, we not only don't do that but specifically reject that usage in the article in question. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. This seems like the exact issue that is addressed in the policy tutorial. One group is apppointed as experts and allowed to control the meaning of a phrase. While it is necessary to show that "alternative uses are both significant and verifiable", if they meet that threshold they should be included. Due to the extensive use of "Assault rifle" to refer to military-style semi-automatic rifles, it is clearly a significant usage. NPOV requires fair treatment of all points of view. Felsic2 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that if we went with this (vernacular usage is equal to usage by experts) we would be left unable to correct any common misconception. As I said elsewhere, it's also common for non-expert sources to refer to armoured fighting vehicles that aren't tanks as tanks, ships that aren't battleships as battleships, and use "rocket" and "missile" interchangeably when they are not interchangeable. Another example would be automatic shotgun: under US gun law, there isn't actually such a thing because they're included in the umbrella term "machine gun," but you won't find any expert source calling the USAS-12 or AA-12 a machine gun. In terms of a class of firearms it's important to maintain the distinction because otherwise it's hard to establish what you're actually talking about; eg, it's hard to explain what the difference between an M16 and an AR15 Sporter is if you call both of them assault rifles. It's the same reason firearms sources make a big deal about the difference between a clip and a magazine, because in some cases you need that distinction; for example, explaining the difference between versions of the Mauser C96 where some have a fixed magazine loaded with a stripper clip while others have a detachable box magazine, or that one Italian copy of the M1 Garand has a detachable box magazine while all others are fed with a clip.

For some further examples, it's also common for people to mistakenly refer to spiders and scorpions as insects, fungi as plants and amphibians that look like lizards such as newts and salamanders as lizards. If the policy worked like you're saying, claiming these usages were incorrect would mean the field of biology was claiming it owned these words, and I really don't think it's supposed to work like that. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that our job here is to correct common misconceptions?

The problem here is not just the various definitions of this term, it is also how the use of the "incorrect" definition is used as a cudgel to attack sources. Not only are we, the Wikipedia editorship, saying that "Assault rifle" has only one possible correct definition, we're also saying that anyone who doesn't use that definition is an ignoramus.

The use of "assault rifle" to refer to semi-automatic rifles is not limited to the media - it is used by police and the FBI.[7][8][9][10] If the FBI can call a semi-automatic rifle an "assault rifle", then I don't see why Wikipedia can't mention that usage. Felsic2 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is the press office of the FBI isn't an expert source on firearms knowledge and I doubt those that work in their press office are vetted for their knowledge of proper terminology, so we shouldn't really be surprised that they make mistakes. If all experts worldwide agree on something, that's what we should report the definition to be; this is the "expert consensus" idea that guides Wikipedia's approach to things like pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Sticking to the definition used to classify weapons when talking about a class of weapons is to do with sorting weapons into sensible categories that recognise an auto-capable rifle is not the same thing as one that isn't auto-capable. What you're saying here would require there was significant disagreement among experts as to the scope of the term "assault rifle," and I don't think "laymen get it wrong a lot" really qualifies.

As noted, under certain definitions (ie, US gun law) this device is a machine gun. I don't think that really needs to be on the page for the weapon in question, or would justify sticking it in a category which is defined by the military / firearms expert definition of a machine gun (crew-served support weapon). Herr Gruber (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm hearing that a lot - 'they're not experts'. What is the definition of an expert - someone who agrees with this definition of "assault rifle"? What mechanism or policy are we using to establish the expertise needed to be a source for this article? Felsic2 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case, experts in a relevant field, such as recognised firearms experts and military procurement boards, and the mainstream international definition of the term. Using "assault rifle" to refer to semiautomatics is almost exclusively confined to the United States, with Oxford English not featuring the alternative term at all (and with a second example sentence that's physically impossible since an assault rifle that uses SMG ammunition is called an SMG), while Collins gets acutely confused and only refers to the "assault weapon" term, saying it's "mainly US." This, by the way, is why you don't source dictionaries on technical terms; they suck at them. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the FBI is an expert in the relevant field. As for the rest of your definition, who does the "recognising" of "recognised firearms experts"?

Why are you citing a dictionary and then saying we shouldn't cite dictionaries? Felsic2 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"The FBI" is an umbrella term for a huge number of people. Someone in a department related to firearms is certainly going to be an expert, not so much an anonymous clerk who writes press releases. You'd need someone with a name and qualifications to really assert this person is an expert who's choosing to use a term in a particular way.

To try to be a little more productive here, you're not really presenting the right kinds of sources; even if you have a thousand individual sources it's OR to present "this is someone using a word a certain way" as proof that people generally use a word that way. There's certainly not enough here to claim that this is how the term is used by "civilians" rather than "some people in America." What you'd need is a decent article which defines the alternative use of the word and who uses it like that.

Also I'm saying we shouldn't cite dictionaries in articles about technical terms, we can do whatever we want on talk pages. We are free as birds! :D Herr Gruber (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The problenm with your approach is that any source I could find which disagrees will likely be dismissed as coming from a non-expert. That's why I'm trying to pin down how we determine who is or isn't an expert. So again, how do we determine who is an expert? If we can't agree, then we should fall back on Wikipedia's general rules on reliable sources at WP:V. Felsic2 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say someone who has recognisable qualifications in terms of dealing with firearms classification; armourers, quartermasters, people who have worked for military procurement boards, military manuals, recognised and published firearms writers, etc. That would be the acid test for if someone's an expert on guns or not. Failing that, a decent mainstream publication that's stating "this is the other definition of assault rifle, it's used by these people." Otherwise sources saying it's correct are undone by sources saying it absolutely isn't. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Most of those qualifications are beyond the capability of us to determine. I doubt that many sources currently used would qualify. But the last, "published firearms writers", is more akin to the usual standard for experts. So will you accept any and all published firearms writers" as experts? And if so, can we report their usage? Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Recall, I don't think the article should say "Assault rifles are selective fire or semi-automatic rifles". I just think it should report on the common usage as well as the more restrictive definition. Felsic2 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, a source quoting someone's qualifications ("Ned, a former armourer, said...") is always best for what qualifications people have. And sure, but I think the general consensus among published firearms writers is what we're reporting now. The sources I linked list sources of their own, a range that goes all the way from the US Department of Defense ("short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges") and Defense Intelligence Agency ("short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges") to the Associated Press Stylebook, of all things ("Assault rifle is a military weapon with a selector switch for firing in either fully automatic or semi-automatic mode").

Like I said, to include the broader definition you'd need some source stating who uses it like that, and include that it's generally regarded as incorrect. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you please indicate which sources currently used in the article meet your standards? For example, what are Michael Shurkin's credentials? Or Alexander Rose's? Felsic2 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Rose appears to be a military historian, Shurkin is a former military intelligence analyst? Herr Gruber (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, they are not "armourers, quartermasters, people who have worked for military procurement boards, military manuals". They are simply "published writers". I'd say that the FBI press office qualifies as much as they do. Felsic2 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, that's hardly a comprehensive list I gave, a published military historian and a military intelligence analyst are certainly more qualified in a subject area related to the military than the press office of a law enforcement agency. Further, you still have the problem that using the FBI links would be OR since the sources themselves assert nothing about correct word use. See WP:SYNTH. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please give me a complete, comprehensive list of who qualifies as a reliable source for firearms articles. I'm getting kind of tired of trying to figure out who will be acceptable. Especially since most of the sources for firearms articles don't seem to meet these lofty requirements. Felsic2 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How about you suggest a source and we discuss it? :)

Oh, also I think you misinterpreted what I said above, I just want some source (a "decent mainstream publication") that asserts who uses this definition, I'm not holding you to the rules for experts since you're just trying to include this somewhere rather than change the whole article. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How about we just use the regular policies and guidelines on sources?

I provided you with a bunch of FBI citations. You dismissed them all. How about we say, in the "Characteristics" section, "Notwithstanding the strict definition, civilians, including the FBI, also refer to military-style semi-automatic rifles as 'assault rifles'."? Felsic2 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I dismissed them because they don't assert anything about word definition, they just use the word a certain way, and it's SYNTH to make a conclusion from that if it's not actually made by some other source. I think maybe this might be better suited to the "assault rifles versus assault weapons" section since it's mostly to do with that dispute as far as I can tell? I mean, that already starts by noting "The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community. In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle" which seems more or less what you wanted anyway. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Felsic2 does not have consensus to rewrite the definition of the term assault rifle to include all semi-automatic rifles. Which would mean a major rewrite not only to this article, but to dozens, if not hundreds of related articles. I recommend that Felsic2 "drop the stick" --RAF910 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding a short sentence is hardly a "major rewrite". Nor would it require rewriting any other articles. That misrepresents my comments entirely. Felsic2 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Please...Your edit history makes it clear that you want to redefine every single semi-auto rifle on Wiki as an assault rifle. Regardless, you don't have consensus to make the changes that you want to make. So, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass".--RAF910 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you said the part about the stick in your last post. Please focus on the content, not the contributor. Don't make unsupported accusations. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has a substantive paragraph in the section titled "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons"/

• The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1] In more casual usage, the term assault weapon is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle.

Etc. The problem is that not all military-style semi-automatic rifles are "assault weapons". So if we broadened that a little, such as renaming the section to "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles", and revise the intro to something like this:

• The term assault rifle, when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community.[1] Many assault rifles are sold with semi-automatic variants. In casual usage, the term assault rifle is applied to assault weapons and other military-style semi-automatic rifles.

That'd cover the issue without much fuss.Felsic2 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see a need to use the political term "military style rifle" here, since actual military-style semi-automatic rifles are either sniper rifles / DMRs (eg SVD Dragunov), battle rifles (eg British SLR), or from the Second World War / Korean War era (eg SKS). Neither do I think we need to word it to imply an assault weapon is a real thing, or that people necessarily decide to use the word that way rather than it being a simple error: "conflated or confused" does the job just fine there. Just to go through the issues with the rewording:

• "Many assault rifles are sold with semi-automatic variants" - potentially confusing wording since it implies that select-fire variants are also "sold," which could be read as implying that it's legal for a civilian to buy a select-fire weapon. This is only true in a very small number of countries. The sentence also just kind of floats there in the middle of the paragraph without really relating to anything around it.
• "In casual usage..." - unqualified (due to deleting the later "sometimes"), implies everyone who is not part of the firearms industry does this.
• "the term assault rifle is applied to assault weapons" - implies "assault weapon" has a solid definition / is a formal class of firearms; it is much more neutral to describe it as a "term" as per the current wording. "Assault weapons" legislation typically includes pistols, pistol-calibre carbines, battle rifles and shotguns (and usually also .50 cal rifles even though the only way to assault something with one of those is to use it as a club), so saying the two terms are "conflated or confused" is a more accurate wording. I don't think anyone, no matter how "casual," would ever call this shotgun an assault rifle, even though it's been in every single assault weapon ban list.
• "and other military-style semi-automatic rifles." - as mentioned, vague and contentious political term, should not really be used. The so-called "military-style" intermediate-calibre weapons which don't tick the boxes for "assault weapon" definition are generally weapons no military would ever dream of using due to incredibly silly stocks or convoluted reloading methods. Technically a musket or longbow is a "military-style" weapon since both were used by armed forces for hundreds of years, it's a pretty meaningless label. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "Many assault rifles are sold with semi-automatic variants" - Is the SIG MCX, for example, an assault rifle or not? Well, it appears to me that it has several variants, at least one of which is an assault rifle. Quite a few articles on assault rifles mention semi-automatic variants. Maybe the semantics are a little off. How about this: "Many semi-automatic rifles are variants of selective-fire assault rifles"? Is that untrue? Felsic2 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Citations on definitions

Hi. I'd just like to point of the excessive five citations on the opening sentence, only one is remotely up to date, the encyclopedia Britannica. If you click the citation itself, encyclopedia britannica says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition" The other 4 citations are obscure books whose content is not worth verifying since they're all obscure books between 29 and 49 years old - meaning they are completely out of date. That would be literally like someone saying "According to the Diagnosal and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3rd edition describes your symptoms as 'mania.' Oh, no, I don't really listen to the DSM-V. Why does being 29 years old make it invalid information? Recommended treatment for your symptoms is electroshock. I'll get the jumper cables." 99.246.103.31 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)