Talk:Assault rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Military (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Engineering, applied sciences, and technology.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

fully automatic vs selective fire[edit]

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 (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)

Technical definition versus English language definition[edit]

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 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.[1] 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.[2]. 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.[3] 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[edit]

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
  • 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.[4][5][6][7] 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[edit]

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." (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias[edit]

So I guess we're ignoring wiki BRD policy on this page? The unsourced assertion that assault rifles were first used in ww2 is not the consensus view, nor is the assertion that the germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept during world war 2. "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." Other experts argue that the first was the federov avtomat. There is no consensus among experts that assault rifles were first used in ww2, and there is no consensus among experts that germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept. I'd support a change to saying that the germans pioneered the sturmtruppen tactics in world war 2, and so it could be said that germany pioneered new tactics based around the assault rifle, sturmgewehr, but it seems like the germans pioneered sturmtruppen tactics at the end of world war 1.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a fringe claim, and per WP:UNDUE we go by what the mainstream opinion is, not what a single source claims. Your source also says "The Burton Balloon Buster" was designed as a specialised weapon, intended only to fire slow heavy incendiary rounds capable of defeating observation balloons, not as an infantry weapon. And the Fedorov Avtomat has been discussed multiple times, with no support for it being an assault rifle. Thomas.W talk 11:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What justification are you using for calling an article about guns published in the NRA journal for the american arms collector by a well respected firearms editor william b edwards. Per WP:FRINGE this does not seem to qualify as a fringe theory. The source is a reliable source. It's not original research. I'm not saying that there can't be anyone in the firearms community that disagrees so it's not a npov violation. If you do present a reliable source to support the claim that one of one of the WW2 germany designs was the first assault rifle, unlike you, I'm perfectly happy to accept that that position would hypothetically have support. And it's verifiable. How can you claim that it's a fringe theory and what support do you have for your StG 44 claim and are you violating NPOV? You seem to be willfully ignoring a verifiable claim.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that claiming there was an assault rifle before the StG-44 is like claiming there was a Dreadnought before HMS Dreadnought: while you might find a design that ticks most or even all the boxes, there was no such thing as a Dreadnought for that ship to be. Here you have something that might be considered an assault rifle (through since it was designed to be mounted it seems more like a light machine gun to me) but it's one prototype and we have no idea why it was abandoned. I understand your concern that the current article sounds like the gun just fell out of Hitler's ass one day, but at best these maybe-guns belong in a "precursors" section. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussions like this on talk pages is OR but I thought that it was the other way around. The dreadnought was the first ship to have a all major gun armament and steam turbines. I haven't heard it argued that there were dreadnought class ships before the hms dreadnought. And if there was a ship with the same features as the hms dreadnought before the hms dreadnought, shouldn't the dreadnought article reflect that if there are reliable sources to support it? I can say that four nations adopted the winchester model 1907 in small numbers. Fully automatic, intermediate round, detachable magazine. Also, it looks like there were two barrels for the winchester 1917, one for aircraft and another from infantry. I suppose you're talking about the aircraft barrel being designed to be mounted? I'm perfectly happy saying that the origin of sturmgewehr/assault rifle was in germany and could be attributed to hitler, but there are reliable sources that say that there were assault rifles before the stg-44. How can this article be NPOV if it ignores RS that say that there were assault rifles before the stg-44? Not to mention I still haven't seen a RS saying that the stg-44 was the first AR.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually IIRC only M1907s in French use were converted to fullauto and the M1907 wasn't really designed for the same role, it would be too unwieldy to use in the same way as an SMG since it didn't have a pistol grip, and only the French used large magazines with it, which since they were single-column were gigantic (see here) while everyone else used 10-rounders and used it as a semi-auto battle rifle.
I'm talking about that "balloon rifle;" by the sounds of it it's like the Villar-Perosa or MG34 Panzerlauf in that it was to come with a kit that let it be dismounted and used separately from the vehicle it was mounted on. Granted if it was actually adopted it might have become the first AR if, like the Villar-Perosa, it ended up with a dedicated infantry version, but as it is it ended up shoved down the side of a cabinet for almost a century.
Let's say we're talking about evolution and the "first" mammal. Obviously it's hard to point to one specific creature, but would you call the first mammal the creature that all other mammals share as a common ancestor (thus being the first because it defined the group of things called mammals), or the first creature with mammalian traits even though you know that creature had no actual descendants? Herr Gruber (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're choosing to define "the first assault rifle" not as the first rifle with the characteristics of an assault rifle, but the first rifle with the characteristics of an assault rifle to be adopted by a military. The thing is that's OR. A reliable source says that the first assault rifle was the winchester model 1917. Also, fwiw, giving the 1907 a forward pistol grip seems to have been a common modification going back to the '50s or earlier.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the weapon from which all modern assault rifles are conceptually descended, as opposed to a flash-in-the-pan prototype or something that was a bit like a concept that was codified later and by something else.
And as far as I know sticking a forward pistol grip on an M1907 wasn't an official modification, so it wouldn't qualify as a purpose-built assault rifle:I was also talking about it not having a rear pistol grip, and generally the wrong ergonomics for close-range use. And the problem is you have one source that advances a particular theory (I don't know why you keep calling it the "Balloon Rifle" the Winchester M1917, it was only ever a prototype and so never received a military model number and Winchester M1917 is a term for this thing) while even the most casual search of firearm histories would absolutely bury you in statements that the StG-44 was the first. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
And there are plenty of RS saying the mk-42->stg-44 weren't the first assault rifles. And your argument is OR, and I think it's based on the whole central misconception. While yes, the stg-44 may have had some influence on the AK-47, AFAIK russia didn't say "there have been evolutionary developments in firearms around the world that are leading to the merging of SMGs and battle rifles but let's throw all that away. This german STG-44 is obviously a wunderwaffen. We need this nazi wunderwaffen. Make exactly this. Like the B-29 we cloned, and all the other stuff we cloned, like the cameras, and watches, and computers, and so on. Throw away all the research we were doing. Throw away this 7.62x39mm we developed in 1943.. Oh. And yea this wunderwaffen is obviously going to usher in a new era of infantry combat, but let's just wait a decade or so before we really jump on it. Then it will be that much more special. This whole 'all the worlds militaries revolved around the stg-44' idea doesn't seem to have any support. The US military was developing an intermediate cartridge the .276 iirc in 1932. The StG-44 simply didn't play this pivotal role you seem to be implying it played. AFAIK the biggest roles the stg-44 played were the sturmgewhr name, and however much it influenced the AK-47. And this whole idea that there was this tidy A to B to C evolution of assault rifles starting with the stg-44 doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. What little role the stg-44 played in world war 2 and what little influence the stg-44 had on anything other than maybe having a small role in the development of the AK-47 seem to be wildly wildly overstated. Heck, the M-16/AR-15 started out as the 7.62x51mm AR-10. The pentagon simply decided to finally use the kind of cartridge that they'd arguably been developing since 1895. They didn't say, "this ar-10 sucks, give me something like the stg-44, the katana of rifles".TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
So you're trying to argue the gun the entire class of weapons is named after, a class of weapons that did not formally exist before it, didn't define the class of weapons? Yes, the British thought the StG-44 itself was stupid and the Americans compared it unfavourably to the M2 carbine. But then they went away and made their own rifles and when they did they named them after it. You might as well try to argue the V2 wasn't pivotal in US ballistic missile research because of Goddard, even though the only people who paid any real attention to Goddard's work lived in Russia and Germany. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm arguing that if there are RS that dispute this germany-hitler-stg-44 narrative than it's a npov violation not to include it. OR wise, there are some points I'd like to make. An AR is simply a large caliber SMG or a small caliber MG. That's it. A different cartridge. A 9mm AR-15 is an SMG. A 7.62mm AR is an AR-10 MG. I haven't looked into it, but let's say that the US moved from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45 because a light, fast bullet that fragments and produces a good festering wound, taking soldiers out of combat for a comparatively long time was deemed to be better than a heavy bullet that produced through and throughs. Plus probably better zero drop distance or whatever. They decided to simply change the caliber to a concept that they'd been developing since 1895. You're saying that the US military came to jesus, finding the one true god/religion (it's just a common phrase) with the STG-44 being jesus, but they just changed one thing, and does the stg-44 or even the ak-47 have either of those two advantages? Does the 7.62 kruz or whatever fragment and tumble, and does it have improved zero drop range? No, and no, as far as I know. When the US adopted the M-16 they were actually moving away from the stg-44. They were moving in their own direction. Which makes perfect sense because the only reason anyone would think anything else is if they were trying to force this wunderwaffen narrative on the M-16 with absolutely no support whatsoever. The American M-16 assault rifle is an american invention that was developed along different, diverging paths from the stg-44. You've created this OR no true scotsman first AR definition, the federov's 6.5x50 so so no true scotsman is 6.5x50, the m3 is .30 carbine so no true scotsman is .30 carbine. The M1907 was issued in france so no true scotsman so no true scotsman has a semi-pistol grip with non service approved front full pistol grips. The balloon buster has everything but it was designed both for aircraft use and infantry use so no true scotsman has an aircraft version complementing the infantry version that is designed to mount on an aircraft. Ever more and more tortured your definition becomes and you draw these conclusions from this tortured definition you create where the premise and the conclusion are both wrong. Russia and france had already adopted the federov avtomat and the winchester 1917. The gas tube arrangement that russia adopted may have come from the mk-42 or one of it's predecessors. iirc it was the walther with the upper gas tube but it could easily have been the haenel. But it was the switch from 6.5 to 7.62x39, a round that russia developed independently in '43 that gets it your true scotsman blessing. And for france presumably it was the move from the partial pistol grip to the full pistol grip and the stg-44 certainly has no claim to that. And, as I've said, similarly, the stg 44 had little to no influence on the development of the m-16. And god, it's even more tortured than that. There already was a class name for this group of weapons in the 1930s accepted in germany and the us at least. Machine carbine. All that happened was that someone came up with a snappier name. Like warfighter and all that godawful tripe. But you realize that creating the idiot phrase warfighter didn't change anything... What does it matter if they call it the machine carbine or the self-loading rifle, individual combat weapon, infantry automatic rifle. The air force adopted the m-16 because it was cheap, then mcnamara adopted it because it was the only rifle in contention that fit the needs of all three services. The M-16 was adopted as: "Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm" And that's the story of how the US military adopted hitler's katana. What conclusions can you draw about the M-16 and the STG-44? Pretty much none. Did the M-16 get it's plastics from the stg-44? It's aluminum? It's caliber? It's fps? It's carry handle? How did the STG-44 influence the Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm M-16? What does it mean that the US (didn't really) choose a marketing term from hitler's propaganda file?TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You're getting really confused with this "Winchester 1917" thing. The "Balloon Rifle" is the one from 1917, but would never have got a model number since that indicates year of production and it never entered production (probably due to questions about whether the fearsome power of a canvas bag full of hydrogen really warranted a special weapon to deal with it). It seems to have been an LMG in the form it was in (ie, designed to be mounted) but if it had gone the Villar-Perosa routes ("this is useless, give it to the infantry") it might have ended up pioneering the concept a lot sooner than it was in real history, but we'll never know that. France adopted a select-fire M1907 in line with their "walking fire gun" concept, but the M1907 certainly wasn't designed to be used at short range like a true assault rifle, particularly given how unwieldy any magazine over ten rounds was. And neither the M1907 or the Fedorov Avtomat used a purpose-designed intermediate round, instead using respectively a round designed for hunting and a long rifle round.
It's certainly true that there was a history of development prior to the creation of assault rifles by other countries, which shouldn't be any kind of surprise since if there wasn't it would have been impossible for them to invent their own; yes, the AK represented a Russian attempt to develop a compromise between the beloved PPSh and a long rifle and mechanically was completely unrelated to the StG, but conceptually it was a successor; they looked at the thing, looked at their research and said "yes, that's where we're going with this, let's use this stuff we already know to make one of those our way."
I've said several times that I don't approve of the current article implying that there was no history of development of similar weapons prior to the StG, but equally since prior to that there was no category of weapons called assault rifles it is correct to say it was the crystallisation of the concept at very least. One could certainly reference things like the French walking fire rifle concept, but these early designs are obscure and forgotten because they failed to catch on, so saying they were the de facto first is a little misleading. As with the evolution example, they're the equivalent of dead ends which happened to have the features of a later group.
(Also IIRC the switch to 5.56 wasn't to do with wounding, it was because the M14 was practically unusable in full-auto). Herr Gruber (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The win mod 1907 used the .351 wsl, an intermediate cartridge. Interestingly the article says that an M1 thompson prototype was made in .351 wsl. The ~9mm bullet on a .351 is a little fat, but it's right in the middle of the pack energy wise for an intermediate cartridge. It seems like I'm not alone in being confused about the model 1917 winchester-burton "balloon buster" machine rifle. Is that name perfectly accurate? I don't know. Want to just call it the balloon buster? Why not? But it had two variants, one for infantry without mounting, and one for aircraft with mounting, some even had bayonet mounts. The select-fire M1907s were issued with 15 or 20 round magazines, not 10 round. "they're the equivalent of dead ends which happened to have the features of a later group." Well, the 1907 was manufactured for 52 years... How much of a dead end/flash in the pan was the 1930s walther machine karbine? How much of a dead end/flash in the pan was the federov avtomat? This flash in the pan/dead end concept seems to be based on this mistaken idea that the STG-44 would replace the federov avtomat as the source of inspiration for the russians which is wrong. This flash in the pan/dead end concept seems to be based on this mistaken idea that individual countries didn't have their own agency, their own development paths that had relatively little influence from the stg-44. In russia it was probably the federov that had more of an influence than the stg-44, which would lead to the argument that it was the federov that was more influential, although less famous and popular with casual ww2 fans who think that the king tiger was the best tank or whatever, and the german jet was the best airplane. It seems like what we're dancing around is just a statement saying that the stg-44 was the first assault rifle to see significant deployment/widespread deployment. The development of ARs in other countries is a surprise to someone reading this article because it says that the AR was first used in ww2, and were pioneered in germany in ww2. Also, while germany did outfit one single division with stg-44s for a short time, a year? AFAIK they then switched to the US M2 carbine and didn't switch back to ARs for decades. So this idea that german army in it's entirety or majority transitioned to the AR is wrong, and this idea stated in this article that the german army adopted the AR abandoning other infantry rifles early and continued using ARs until today is wrong and misleading. This is a second way that the stg-44 was a dead end. When compared to 100 million, is a production of ~440,000 rifles really "large numbers"? And this is all not mentioning apparently the stg-44's main mode of operation was semi-automatic. Full auto was a secondary mode. So this whole idea of giving the front line infantry machine guns, multiplying their firepower is wrong too, I suppose it was there to give individual soldiers the ability to perform suppression fire when it was called for, an ability that russian ppsh-41 soldiers obviously had. One that US marine 4 man fireteams had, that probably the british and french developed as well. The french were trying to develop their Ribeyrolle 1918. It seems arguably that in 1918 the french army sat down and said "Let's develop an assault rifle. Pistol grip, detachable magazine, intermediate cartridge, effective range 400m. Let's make a stg-44. Let's call it a stg-44. Hitler had a lot..." It's just that the Ribeyrolle 1918 didn't quite meet their accuracy requirements. It was a bit too heavy and they gave up rather than soldiering on, probably influenced by outside factors. In 1918 the french military set aside the Ribeyrolle 1918 because it wasn't enough like the stg-44. I've never had any objection to saying that the stg-44 was the first ar to see wide manufacturing and wide deployment, equipping a single division for about a year before the german military who had never adopted the stg-44 as it's main infantry rifle dropped the AR concept entirely. But so far the only thing that's happened is that any edits I've made to the article have been reverted. So how do we move this article away from what it is now to a form that's more representative of the history of ARs as reflected by RS. Whenever I try to remove statements that are factually inaccurate it just gets reverted.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's your assertion that .351 WSL was an intermediate cartridge since the designers didn't create it to bridge the gap between SMG and AR, they created it for shooting deer.
The balloon buster rifle (that article's name of "Winchester-Burton Machine Rifle" seems the most accurate name) strikes me as a weapon with two configurations rather than two variants, rather like the MG34 Panzerlauf: it was supposed to be used by the crew if the aircraft had to ditch by swapping out the barrel for one with a bayonet lug and sling mount. Like the Villar-Perosa, if it had ever been adopted in any number they'd probably have started issuing ground versions of it to infantry and it would have spun off and become its own thing, but that didn't happen and we don't know if it even worked since the testing data has been lost; I'm not entirely convinced a 10-pound WW1-era MG wouldn't have had some issues with dismantling itself while firing.
Yeah, I know French select-fire M1907s were issues with 15 and 20 rounders (I bought that up earlier) but a 20-rounder for the M1907 looks like this, I don't think you could really consider the result a weapon suitable for close-range engagements.
It wouldn't surprise me if the soldiers with StGs were told to regard auto as a secondary function given that historically European militaries never trusted their troops to not piss away all their ammo (same logic as SMLE magazine cut-offs and the initial reluctance to purchase magazine rifles at all), but does that correlate with how they were used in the field?
I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
that 20 round magazine would be ~seven inches long. An AR-15 magazine is ~7.5 inches long. So I'd say that it just seems overlarge because the rifle itself isn't tall and there's no pistol grip or prominent magazine well. Apparently the ammo conservation problem was particular with the US military as well. I don't think the US Military chose the .351 to shoot deer from airplanes with explosive/incendiary shells. "I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either." that seems like a good consensus view. Less of this AR originated in ww2 germany false narrative.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Given we're largely agreed here, I'll wait for other input. Re: the .351, that's the game cartridge the M1907 used, not the cartridge the Winchester-Burton used. The latter was a special .345 that was designed primarily as a calibre for incendiary / tracer rounds rather than conventional bullets. I'd assume the ground version was to use a solid bullet, though it didn't actually have to since your second article misses that the USA isn't a signatory of the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and so would be under no obligation to follow it. Also re: auto, it seems most firearm manuals of the time described select-fire weapons like that, the FG42 manual said it was a semi-automatic rifle that could be used in fully-automatic mode "in an emergency," though granted in the FG42's case it would be more likely to cause the emergency. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have again reverted, TeeTylerToe edits. He does not have consensus to make said changes...quite the opposite. He also remove information that was supported by multiple references and replaced it with info that was completely unsourced. Which I find ironic as TeeTylerToe believes the article is "False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias". Also, TeeTylerToe's edit to this talk page are chaotic to say the least. As others have succinctly said "a wall of questions and comments" that make it difficult to determine what his specific grievance are, or with whom. --RAF910 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the lack of consensus? This discussion has been going on for almost a week and we reached a consensus. If you want to try to change that consensus go ahead, but please stop with your disruptive editing. I've provided multiple reliable sources contradicting the information that I've removed. Even the references themselves contradict the stg-44 narrative, "The much-touted "new" weapon is actually the familiar German machine carbine with a more chest-thumping title." "The completely new name of Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) may be intended to erase any recollection of the mediocre quality of the earlier M. P. 43's, at least so far as new troops and the public are concerned. In any event, the introduction of the title Sturmgewehr, together with the accompanying blast of propaganda concerning the weapon, is but another example of German efforts to exploit the propaganda value inherent in weapons with impressive-sounding titles, such as Panzer, Tiger, Panther, and Flak 88. Since the Sturmgewehr is more easily mass-produced than a rifle or machine gun because of its many stampings and low-power ammunition, and because a machine carbine is needed by desperately fighting German infantry in their efforts to stem the assault of American troops, it is natural that the Germans should make every effort to capitalize on its propaganda potentialities. By dubbing the M. P. 43 the Sturmgewehr, Hitler may also succeed in deceiving many Germans into thinking that this weapon is one of the many decisive "secret weapons" which they have been promised, and which they are told will bring final German victory." The references also support the edits I made. "the Germans rather tardily decided that they needed a weapon representing a compromise between the submachine gun (or machine pistol) and the rifle." "Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions),", "[The AK-47] has been produced in more countries, and greater quantities, and to a greater degree of international standardization than any other rifle in history." Germany made ~426,000 stg 44s and they equipped one division with them for about a year. They weren't the first in the world, or the first in germany. Over a hundred million ak-47s have been made equipping ~200 russian divisions and ~200 chinese divisions and that's just those two countries. And as the m-16 case study says, the US Military was still uninterested in either the stg-44 or the ak-47. In fact, the study notes that it was in the 1895-1900 timeframe that the US military was studying the wounding capability of smaller, faster rounds such as the 6mm round. That both the M1 garand and the M1 carbine had been developed into automatic rifles during world war 2 without the influence of the stg-44, the automatic m1 garand, for instance, being influenced by plans for a ground war against japan. "While many senior leaders and ordnance officials lauded the capabilities of the .30’06 cartridge, others felt it was overly powerful for the requirements of the modern battlefield. In April 1923, representatives of the Infantry and Cavalry stated they felt that the .30’06 caliber cartridge was one of the main obstacles in the design of a semi-automatic rifle" "He cited studies conducted in Europe on the lethality of smaller caliber cartridges and offered to design a new selfloading rifle in caliber .276. He theorized that the smaller caliber cartridge would be more accurate, weigh less and cost less than the current .30’06 cartridge. Subsequent field trials on the Pedersen rifle and his competitor’s design, the Garand, concluded that the .276 caliber was indeed more suited for a self-loading rifle, and all developmental research for a .30’06 caliber semi-automatic rifle was suspended." They also tested .256, and eventually performed rifle trials comparing a .276 garand design against the .30-06 with the .276 winning the competition, and remember, with the face of an invasion of japan, the US would realize the need for an automatic garand. The sources also go into the western adoption of assault rifles with excruciating detail concluding that US intervention delayed western adoption until the 70s. that's just one more source that supports my edits. "As others have succinctly said "a wall of questions and comments" that make it difficult to determine what his specific grievance are, or with whom." That makes sense to you? What does it mean? How do you think that consensus is achieved? Do you think that it's whatever you say it is? I made well sourced, well referenced edits. They were reverted. I discussed them on the talk page. The talk page discussion was rather drawn out.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Please read Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read
  2. you remove information that was supported with multiple references, while your edits were completely unrefrenced
  3. this talk page conversation was about 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" which you repeatedly hailed as the gold standard and absolute proof that the STG44 was not the first assault rifle. However, your edit made no mention of it. That is called BAIT & SWITCH.--RAF910 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:TLDR an essay, "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym." Although fair's fair. You do say very little. Is your view of life dr;dr? Don't read, didn't read? Nothing I added is unsourced/unreferenced, not to mention, you may have noticed a bit of a discussion on the talk page? How is that bait and switch? It's a well respected firearm publication editor posted in a well respected reliable source saying that the stg-44 wasn't the first assault rifle. But did you notice that I've also posted a long string of other sources supporting that? TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be refactored in line with WP:RFC, a specific question asked and an area set aside for responses?

Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such?


  • Yes, of course it was. There may have been precursor weapons which performed the same function, but they rarely got beyond prototype or experimental stage. The StG-44 was designed to fill the assault rifle role, produced and employed in large numbers. It is quite obviously the first of many similar weapons, all sharing similar characteristics, and all commonly described as assault rifles. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it was. I agree 100% with Pete. Perfectly, eloquently and succinctly stated.--RAF910 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It's self-contradictory. "there may have been precursor weapons [sharing the characteristics of, and commonly described as assault rifles, but] It is quite obviously the first [except the other ones I just mentioned that came before it].TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's the bit you left out: "…they rarely got beyond prototype or experimental stage…". We can burrow down that rabbit hole as far as you like, but it's all words, not assault rifles down there. I think we're looking for consensus, rather than a stubborn holdout. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
If you'll read the discussion above, Herr Gruber and I came to an agreement to say that the StG-44 was the first mass produced assault rifle, rather the NPOV violating statements currently being defended by the stubborn holdout RAF910 that assault rifles were (apocryphally) developed in germany, (apocryphally) during world war 2, that the intermediate cartridge was (apocryphally) developed in germany, that the 7.92x33mm kruz was (apocryphally) revolutionary and not a direct development of a swiss intermediate cartridge (iirc). The stg-44 probably wasn't the first rifle with the over the barrel gas system, iirc the lewis 1918 "assault phase rifle" had an over the barrel gas system.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The Lewis rifle never made it past the prototype stage and fired a full rifle round. Not an assault rifle. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You make an excellent argument against this patently ridiculous idea that there exists some true definition of what is and isn't an AR and what is and isn't an intermediate round, but what does that have to do with when and where ARs were developed, the significance of the 7.92 kurz, where the intermediate cartridge was developed, and which rifle first had an over the barrel gas system? Are you conceding every point except the over the barrel gas system one? Are you making the same argument about first ar that you're making about first over the barrel gas system? The wright flyer wasn't a particularly useful airplane it wasn't built in significant numbers and it wasn't adopted by any nation or even company iirc, but it was still the first airplane. There are reliable sources saying that the STG didn't have the first over the barrel gas system. It would be an npov violation to try to suppress that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You called for opinions, and I'm giving mine. If you want to berate me for having a different opinion to yours, that's fine. So far you haven't offered any arguments sufficient to make me change my mind. As for spurious arguments about aircraft, I don't think there's any one ultimate definition of an airliner or a fighter or a patrol aircraft, but the Wright Flyer wouldn't match any. Likewise assault rifles, a specialised variety of firearm. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"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." Other experts argue that the first was the federov avtomat, others argue that it was the winchester 1907, or the winchester-burton 1917. Some say it was the Ribeyrolle CM 1918, some say it was the Weibel/Danrif Rifle, some say it was the 1932 Korovin Avtomat, or the vollmer m35, or the ZK-412. There are plenty of reliable sources disputing any claim of what the first assault rifle was. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that ARs were first developed in germany. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that ARs were first developed in ww2? How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that the 7.92 kurz was revolutionary. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that the stg-44 introduced the over the barrel gas system, inline stock, pistol grip, or the first to have that combination? What if the history section didn't violate NPOV policy? What if this article followed the same rules of every other article and what if editors weren't pushing apocryphal POV narratives that are contradicted by reliable sources?TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, of course the StG-44 was the first assault rifle. No matter how emphatically Mr. Edwards asserts that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first one... Thomas.W talk 13:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, (un-involved editor here), this "Discussion" section is going no where because no one is citing sources (except for one pretty unreliable source cited by TeeTylerToe that, filtered through WP:YESPOV, would rank as cited opinion at best). Content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talkcontribs)
It's a discussion about whether to keep the article as it is or making drastic changes, so why would anyone wanting to keep it as it is need to post any sources here? There are plenty of sources in the article... Thomas.W talk 15:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
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." Winchester Repeating Arms Company By Herb Houze 978-0873497862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talkcontribs)
Yes, you've told us that a few times, and we're still not the least impressed by what your Mr. Edwards is saying. Thomas.W talk 16:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Winchester-Burton rifle must be accorded the distinction of being the first assault rifle ever to be made."[1]TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Houze, Herbert G. (2004). Winchester Repeating Arms Company : its history & development from 1865 to 1981 (Soft cover. ed.). Iola, WI: Krause Publications, c. ISBN 978-0873497862. 
NO...--RAF910 (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a book by Winchester about Winchester, for crying out loud, so of course they would claim that their rifle was the first assault rifle... Thomas.W talk 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you have anything to back up that assertion? It's a book about the company published by Krause Publications. What ties does the book have to the company? How is the book "by winchester"?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Houze was the curator of Winchester's own firearms museum ([8]), that is a Winchester employee. Don't you ever check things? Thomas.W talk 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Houze seems to have been the curator of what was the winchester firearm museum, a wing of the buffalo bill center of the west, dedicated the winchester firearms museum in '76 then re-dedicated the cody firearms museum in '91. As far as I can tell it has no affiliation with the winchester company, although presumably winchester donated firearms to their collection and may have donated money at one time. As far as I can tell Houze was never an employee of winchester firearms, or affiliated with them in any way. "Cody Firearms Museum By Herbert G. Houze, former curator" (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

POV discussion[edit]

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. (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 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[edit]

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)

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 two three 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)


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. 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[edit]

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)


I have reported TeeTylerToe here. Other editors are welcome to comment, though TTT's bizarre claims there are doing him no favours. --Pete (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Update...For informational purposes...TeeTylerToe has been blocked for two weeks for Edit Warring on the Assault rifle page.--RAF910 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Time enough for the message to be accepted and for future behaviour to be more coöperative, I trust. --Pete (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so...If you read his talk page comments regarding the block, not only does he believe that he has done nothing wrong, he claims that we are all meat puppets. He is also mocking the process. I don't think he understands that his foolhardy attempt to trick other users into an edit war backfired on him.--RAF910 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Update...For informational purposes...TeeTylerToe has also lost his Talk Page Access for wikilawyering and refusing to accept responsibly for his actions.--RAF910 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the community is close to exhausting it's patience with him. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Unless he accepts the pause to do some serious reflection on his role here, and comes back with a statement of contrition, apology, and promise to lift his game, then I think it's highly likely he'll repeat past performance, find another article and be disruptive there. This page is probably not the best place to discuss further action, especially while he's unable to respond, but we've just seen him at work, and I think TTT is a good case for seeking a community ban at ANI, if he attempts yet more disruption. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pistol grips[edit]

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)

Stg-44's primary mode was semi-automatic. Fully auto was only for emergency use[edit]

It seems like it's a sin of omission not to highlight that the StG-44 was primarily a semi-automatic rifle. It's full auto mode was only for emergency use. Implying anything else seems completely dishonest even by omission.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't provided any source for that assertion, it isn't supported by the StG-44's article, and in any event it would be an unnecessary detail in an article about assault rifles generally. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends "Although provision is made for both full automatic and semiautomatic fire, the piece is incapable of sustained firing and official German directives have ordered troops to use it only as a semiautomatic weapon. In emergencies, however, soldiers are permitted full automatic fire in two- to three-round bursts." How can you argue that this should be ignored in this article when this article says "They would soon develop a select-fire intermediate powered rifle combining the firepower of a submachine gun with the range and accuracy of a rifle."? The US War Department citing german directives seems to contradict this statement in this article. The StG-44 according to this source was not used primarily as a more powerful submachine gun, but, instead, was used primarily as a semi-automatic, intermediate round firing rifle, more akin to the sks than to SMGs used in full automatic. Also, even in emergencies, it was only to be used in burst fire, not fully automatic type fire.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't warrant inclusion in the general assault rifle article. If you wanted to add it to the StG-44 article, I wouldn't object. Here, it's a meaningless detail. There is nothing inaccurate about the language you cite. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If the way germany employed the stg-44 a "meaningless detail" then what about the stg-44 would be meaningful in this article? Why is the stg-44 mentioned at all? What about the stg-44 is relevant to this article if not that it was employed primarily as a semi-automatic rifle like the sks?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The StG-44 is considered the first "assault rifle" therefore it is sensible to mention it in the assault rifle article. That doesn't mean every detail about it belongs in this article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

If the stg-44 was the first assault rifle, and so, the "first" assault rifle was employed as an sks, how is would that not belong in this article? It's not like assault rifles are used as fully automatic machine guns firing hundreds of rounds at a time. What details do you think are relevant about the "first" assault rifle for the assault rifle article? It's use as an entrenching tool? "Today, the term assault rifle is used to define firearms sharing the same basic characteristics as the StG 44." A basic characteristic of the stg-44 is that it was employed like the sks. How could that not be relevant?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The ideas that the SKS is the "true" first assault rifle, and that the StG-44 is not, are not so far as I can tell supported by the sources. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? The fact is that germany used the stg-44 primarily as a semi-automatic rifle with the option of burst fire for emergencies. As far as I know the sks couldn't fire fully automatic bursts. Also, I don't know, maybe it didn't have a full pistol grip and iirc there was something non-standard about it's magazine or something. If someone tries to add to this article that the stg-44 doesn't have an automatic mode that was used for burst fire in emergencies and that it was used exactly like the sks in every way, remove that, sure. But it seems self-evident to me that how the germans used the stg-44 is central to the stg-44's role in this article. Otherwise, why mention the stg-44 at all? They didn't dig trenches with it. They didn't cook dinner with it. They used it primarily as a semi-automatic rifle. Not as a light machine gun.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's mentioned because it's considered the first assault rifle. The SKS isn't mentioned because it isn't considered an assault rifle. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You're arguing that the fact that it was used primarily for semi-automatic firing is not relevant? Then what about the stg-44 is relevant? Should everything else about the stg-44 be removed from the article? Do you have a source supporting your position? The war department tactical trends journal seems to think that one of the most important facts about the stg-44 is that it was primarily used as a semi-automatic rifle. The german military also seemed to feel that it was fairly important that the stg-44 was primarily a semi-automatic rifle.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying that the fact that German soldiers were directed to use the StG-44 primarily in semi-automatic mode is not particularly relevant to an article on assault rifles generally. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Then what about the stg-44 is notable for this article? What source do you have to support your position?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's your job to get consensus for edits you propose. I don't believe I've proposed any edits beyond maintaining the existing consensus status quo on this article. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Every single edit that TeeTylerToe has made to the article and its talk page has been not only rejected and or reverted by his fellow editors, they have resulted in a two week block. Yet, he still refuses to listen, he continues to insist that he is right and everyone else is wrong. TTT does not have consensus to make any change to this article. And, considering his past performance, it is unlikely that he will ever get a consensus to make any change to this article. If he continues on this path, it is more likely that he will be permanently banned.--RAF910 (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the contributor. Felsic2 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Assault Rifle's use in mass shootings and terrorist attacks[edit]

It's been headline news for years. The New York Times has done a feature on it. What more could anyone ask for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In the general principle Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria...Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine)" Criteria is not specified. I think the notoriety of the AK-47 in multiple shooting crimes stated in the NY Times article meets the notoriety criteria. Not describing the criminal use of the AK-47 violates neutrality I think. If the AR-15 is not considered an assault rifle in this article by definition, as not being a selective-fire rifle, I think the AR-15 can be omitted.CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether the AR-15 is an assault rifle is debatable, since there are so many versions with different actions. But here's the intro to the NYT article:
  • Time and again it’s the same. A lone gunman or a small group of killers with rifles commits spectacular crimes that seize the attention of the world. The list reaches back decades: the killing of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; the school takeover in Beslan, Russia, in 2004; the attacks in Mumbai, India, in 2008; the mall assault in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2013; the killing of more than 100 people in Paris in 2015. Often the rifles are variants of the AK-47, the world’s most abundant firearm, an affordable and simple-to-use assault rifle of Soviet lineage that allows a few people to kill scores and menace hundreds, and fight head-to-head against modern soldiers and police forces.
I also came across an account of the use of assault rifles, including the H&K G3, in attacks in Africa. The AK-47 certainly has notoriety. Assault rifles have a clear role in terrorist and mass shootings that should not be ignored. Felsic2 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
"AR-15" refers to at least two things. There's the original AR-15 that was the internal designation of the product designed for the US military that would become the M-16. That original AR-15 is an assault rifle. A civilian version was made with the same name, the civilian consumer AR-15, and most of those are arguably not assault rifles. That said, the New York Times has deemed it notable that automatic and semi-automatic rifles of the AK-47 and AR-15 pattern are being used more and more in mass shootings and terrorist attacks. What reason could there be to suppress this information? AK-47s aren't making NYT headlines or features for people making guitars out of them.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The G3 isn't an assault rifle, it's a battle rifle. Full-sized 7.62x51mm NATO rifle cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Also the WP:GUN guideline is about the weapon used, not the entire class of weapons the weapon used is part of. The criteria being used here are so vague you could also add the same section to rifle or even gun. We don't seem to have any mass shootings under pistol even though those are also commonly used for such. Neither do we list mass shootings under bullet even though all mass shootings ever have involved those. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
If a reliable source publishes something about the use of pistols in shootings in america being noteworthy then I'd expect that would be something that should be added to the pistol article. Same for bullet although that's really stretching it.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
What if said source was only about the use of Glocks in mass shootings, would the fact that those are popular pistols qualify it for inclusion in a general article about pistols, or would we have to shrug and say that while it might belong somewhere, it's UNDUE to focus on things people do with just one weapon, no matter how common, in a article that's meant to be about a much larger set of weapons? I mean, we don't even list every nation that has a standardised military assault rifle here, or actual wars they've been used in. Are we trying to say crimes and criminals are more notable than wars and countries? Herr Gruber (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


  • 1) The UN tells us, that of the estimated 500 million firearms in existence worldwide, 100 million are AK-47 type rifles. More than all other automatic rifles and SMG combined. And, the Russians and the Chinese handed them out like Halloween candy to every dictator, revolutionary and terrorist group that opposed the US and the western world in general. So, it's not surprising or even notable that terrorist use AK-47s.
  • 2) Semi-auto AR-15 type rifle are NOT assault rifles, no matter how much some people insist that they are.
  • 3) The editors that want to add this info to the article, are that same editors that have been desperately trying to demonize and redefine what an assault rifle is for months, only to be stopped, rejected, reverted and blocked by there fellow editors. This is just another attempt to get the "camels nose under the tent".--RAF910 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
1) It's not surprising that AK-47s use the 7.62×39mm M43 cartridge, but we report it anyway. The fact that a rifle is used a hundred times for something non-notable, and only ten times for something notable, is no reason to exclude those ten times. Airplanes occasionally crash into buildings. So do we ignore the 9/11 attacks? Nope. Terrorist attacks are often unusually notable.
2) "Assault rifle" is commonly used to refer to semi-automatic versions of select-fire weapons. Even the FBI does it. It's a fact of life. Get used to it.
3) Comment on the content, not the contributors. Felsic2 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I have reverted TeeTylerToe's edit since I don't see any support for it here, the AK-47 is also the firearm that has been made in the largest number ever on this planet, and can be bought for next to nothing almost everywhere, so of course it is used by terrorists too. Thomas.W talk 17:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be support from several editors. Only RAF910 wrote to oppose it. If that's your basis for delting it, it's invalid. Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like four? editors support including a section on the use of assault rifles in terrorist attacks, and one, now, with Thomas.W, two opposing it. There is a new york times feature also in support. RAF910, it's not the role of the editor to edit articles to fit your perspective, that is, in every way against wikipedia policy. Your perspective on the commonality of AK-47s has absolutely and utterly no bearing whatsoever on any wikipedia content or discussion. I may like pens. I may like pencils. I may think that pens are better than pencils. I may think that pencils are better than pens. That has exactly as much bearing on wikipedia content and discussion as your opinion about the commonality of AK-47s. The only thing that matters is what is reported by reliable sources such as the new york times. And Thomas.W, when you reverted my edit, my edit was supported by the NYT and 3? other editors and only opposed, coincidentally, by RAF910.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The section added as it stands is essentially useless since it offers no information as to why this is the case, and only links to an article that talks about two types of weapon, only one of which is actually an assault rifle. The NYT article seems more suited to being a source on the AK series, while this article is about information common to all assault rifles; what does this have to do with, say, IWI Tavors, or QBZ-95s, FAMASes, or G36s? Herr Gruber (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The NYT and RAF910 point out that AK-47s are ubiquitous, that there are 100M of them. How many IMI tavors, or QBZ-95s, or FAMAS, or G36' are on the secondary market? Cost is another concern they point out. Also, the availability of many of those rifles on the secondary market is a relatively new phenomenon, while the NYT is talking about a trend starting around 1972. Not to mention, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out with tavors, or QBZ-95s, or FAMAS, or G36? None that spring to mind. The use of AR-15 variants and other semi-automatic weapos in the US seems very regional, and, is arguably, a success of gun control. The vast majority of terrorist attacks as I understand it, take place outside the US. It would be a glaring mistake to assume that trends in the minority of attacks that take place in the US dictate trends that drive the vast vast vast majority of terrorist attacks that take place in places like the middle east. And this article should not be written with such an american bias, rather, as the NYT article does, it should focus on global trends in terror attacks where AK pattern rifles are used in the vast majority of attacks.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's the thing, this article is about assault rifles, not global trends in terrorism. Terrorism is not a part of assault rifles, nor is it associated with very many of them in terms of models since most modern ARs are limited in issue to national armed forces. Also you'd be wrong about AR-patterns, the US handed crates of brand-new M16s to any state that said it liked capitalism in the Cold War, there's a lot of them kicking around too. The AKs used by terrorist groups are for a much simpler reason: if you have anything better than 1940s-era machine tools, you can make a stamped-steel AK, while an AR receiver is a fairly complex bit of machining (effectively, any country able to produce car parts can make AKs). There's local gunsmiths all across the world turning out new unlicensed fullauto AKs every day with no questions asked and no paperwork for anyone to follow. I've heard one story about a gunsmith in the hills in Afghanistan where the journalist heard gunfire outside and the guy just laughed and said it was his customers making sure their new weapons wouldn't explode the first time they put ammo through them. It's effectively the ultimate example of the Sten / FP-45 "insurgency weapon" concept; a cheap, effective and easy to use weapon with such loose manufacturing tolerances that nearly anyone who wants one knows somebody who could potentially make one affordably. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W and editors: I think a section on the criminal use of assault rifles (assault weapon is another article), as defined in this article, belongs in this article because of the notoriety, due to the number of victims in each incident, and multiple incidents using assault rifles for criminal use. For example criminal use of assualt rifles as described in these articles and their sources: 1989 Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton) Munich_massacre 2008_Mumbai_attacks November_2015_Paris_attacks Charlie_Hebdo_shooting 2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers. There is also a NY Times article describing the history of the AR-15 and AK-47 and their variants and their use in criminal activity, written by CJ Chivers who is also the Pulitzer prize winner author of The Gun, and I think a reliable source.

Omitting the criminal use of assault rifles from the article seems to me to be an incomplete non-comprehensive article. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Felsic2 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the inserted section was (a) much too short to actually say anything and failed to offer any information on why this might be the case, (b) was referenced to an article exclusively about the AK and civilian AR series, only one of those being actual select-fire weapons, and (c) was inserted into a history section charting the development of the assault rifle in a place where it made no chronological sense (since it did not happen after the adoption of bullpups) or contextual sense (since it has nothing to do with the evolution of assault rifle designs).
I mean, we don't even list every nation that has a standardised military assault rifle here, or actual wars they've been used in. Are we trying to say crimes and criminals are more notable than wars and entire countries? Or that the AK wasn't "notorious" already from the Cold War and wars in Africa and the Middle East? That the image of the communist guerrilla with his AK in hand wasn't already an indelible part of US (and by extension, Western) culture long before the modern era of terrorism?
The other obvious problem is that assault rifle is the name of a class of weapons, not one specific weapon: the GUN guidelines are for specific weapons, not entire classes of firearms ("In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used..." not "the type of gun used"). Also, the shooters at Clevedown and Baton Rouge did not use assault rifles, they used semiautomatics. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Herr Gruber that the text was too short. It should be developed into a section on the use of assault rifles in insurgenices, terrorist attacks, etc. The matter of small arms proliferation is closely connected to this. Felsic2 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Why only in those things? And who are we calling terrorists? There are plenty of legitimate modern governments and states which were established through "terrorism" and "insurgency," you know. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent point. This article should include material on all that, though I'm not sure if any asault rifles were used in the American Revolutionary War. But neither should it exclude use by the Army of the Confederacy, just because they lost. It'd be against core Wikipedia principles to only mention "legitimate" governments, movements, or ideas. Felsic2 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, what I mean is that the modern states of America and France are both the results of "insurgencies." If we're going to go this route, we can't just focus on people who are currently the "bad guys" using them. Herr Gruber (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The problem is that, on some pages, the insurgents and "criminals" are excluded from mention. Let's not repeat that mistake here. Felsic2 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because knowing about them isn't usually necessary. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It is vital for you to establish why someone needs to know about criminal use to understand what an assault rifle is. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not restricted to defining what things are, like a dictionary. Encyclopedias also give context, history, and other things.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I said, what I said was that we need more than "this information exists" to show that it needs to be here, in order to properly understand the thing this page is about. The last attempt to add this information was just shoving a flat statement into a section where it made absolutely no sense, and arguments for inclusion have repeatedly ignored that the only proper context for such a section would be at the end of a very long section about the entire rest of the history of employment of the assault rifle, which this section's proponents do not appear to be at all interested in writing. Without that proper context, just adding the section by itself is UNDUE. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Herr Gruber, I added the "sentence" in an attempt to add use/misuse information in an effort to build a more complete article, in a WP method of building articles "one sentence" at a time, after I read C.J. Chivers (The Gun) [9] NY Times article. I was not attempting to "shove" it in. I apologize if my (clumsy)attempt seemed that way to the editors. I think a uses section belongs in this article, and added a uses suggestion comment below. Hopefully we can build the uses section, over time. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that approach for anything politically contentious is that policies like UNDUE apply to the current revision of the article, so we have to start with at least the right pieces of the whole story in place. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


  • A comprehensive look at the criminal misuse of assault rifles in insurgencies, terrorist attacks, etc. Would be ten times or more longer than this article itself. Therefore, it would best if you just create a stand alone article. With a see also link here. In fact, you can create similar articles for handguns, shotguns, machineguns and any other class of firearms that you want. And, best of all, those articles can be hundreds of pages long with as much detail as you would like to add. I think that would be the best solution. All in favor, please comment below.--RAF910 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We can start with a section in this article. When it gets too long, we can spin it out and leave a summary here. Felsic2 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your reluctance to create a new article. There are many short or stub articles on Wikipedia. Clearly, you want a comprehensive look at the criminal misuse of assault rifles. I would think you would jump at the opportunity to create such an article. I'm sure you will have no trouble adding enough information to turn it into a serious comprehensive article in short order. After all, from your many discussions regarding this issue, you clearly have many ideas on how you would like to proceed. And, as I said above, you can then use it as a template to create similar articles for handguns, shotguns, machineguns and any other class of firearms that you want.--RAF910 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's stick with discussing this article. If you think this material is worth a standalne article then surely some of it belongs in this article.
1) Do you think that assault rifles haven't been significant in conflicts around the world?
2) Do you think that articles on miltiary equipment should not mention their use in conflicts?
3) What aspect of military equipment is most noteworthy to the history of civilization? Is it there specifications and mechanical actions, or is it their actual use? Felsic2 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Now Felsic, I've actually written about military history before and it's like charting the course of a river; what matters is not describing the shape or the surroundings, but identifying the points where it changes direction, why it's going that way, and what makes it turn. In this way you get some idea of what the river itself is. Maybe some people drowned in part of it once, but unless it was enough to make a dam, that's not relevant since it involves the river but doesn't alter it: thus, you can understand the entire course of the river without that information. It's part of the story of those people, not the river.
Our river here is the concept of the assault rifle; why it is what it is rather than something else. A lot of conflicts are thus irrelevant since they had no effect whatsoever on that path; Soviet observations of the effectiveness of 5.56mm NATO rounds had more effect on the development of the AK series than every war in Africa combined, sad as that is. Similarly, terrorist and criminal use has had almost no effect on the development of select-fire infantry rifles; the weapons they use are mostly of a design that's over seventy years old.
Now if you want to talk about not just crime and terrorism (which would be UNDUE considering all the wars and conflicts assault rifles have been involved in that aren't here either) but the broader subject of how the existence of the assault rifle has changed warfare and the world as a whole, that's a worthy topic, but probably a whole other article. Herr Gruber (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is not about a concept. It's about a category of weapons. An article on assault weapons should include a summary of all significant information about them. Their use is obviously significant - these aren't made and purchased just to sit on a conceptual shelf.
As for drowning deaths, they're reported when they're notable, which isn't often. See Chappaquiddick Island. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
No, this article is about the concept, and the pieces of machinery that are manifestations of that concept. It also isn't about assault weapons. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Assault rifles are a concept, not a category of firearm? If so, we need to change the lead sentence. Felsic2 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
If they weren't a concept, it would be impossible to design a new one, or design the first one. The concept of an assault rifle is a light, self-loading, magazine-fed select-fire firearm that uses an intermediate cartridge and is designed for short periods of automatic fire (long periods would be a machine gun). The category of firearms is all weapons that manifest the concept. It's the same as "a painting of a house" is a concept, and the category "paintings of houses" is all things that fit the description of the concept. Each item is a physical object created in accordance with a set of rules that exist as an idea independently of any specific example.
(To forestall what I think is coming: assault weapon isn't the same because there is dispute about what the "idea" actually is, or what context it exists in) Herr Gruber (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

See...I knew you would come up with something. Those questions, would make a wonderful place to start with your new Comprehensive look at criminal misuse of assault rifles article. You could explore the full history of assault rifles and their criminal misuse in conflicts around the world. You could also, easily explore a wide range of other military equipment, perhaps start new articles for the criminal misuse of bayonets. After all, the terrorist seem to like cutting peoples heads off with them too. Yes, my good fellow I think your on to something.--RAF910 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "misuse"? I've read a number of user manuals for firearms and don't recall seeing any of them telling users not to use them to participate in conflicts. It appears that they are being used exactly how they were intended to be used - to shoot at people. Assault rifles are not designed or sold for use in deer hunting or target shooting. Felsic2 (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No new assault rifles have been manufactured and sold to civilians since 1986. That being said, they work fine for deer hunting and target shooting, when used in semi-automatic mode. When hunting boars, their features also provide a considerable safety margin, to respond to an enraged boar that is trying to kill you. This is legal, too, since boars are classified as farm animals and the normal ammunition hunting limits of three cartridges, maximum, for normal hunting laws, do not apply. You can have 30 rounds, legally, to hunt boars. A nice safety margin is good to have. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow your statement. Which company markets a select-fire, intermediate cartridge rifle for the primary purpose of hunting? Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The primary purpose of civilian semi-automatic AR-style rifles is hunting, regardless of manufacturer. That's what most people buy them for. (Where I live noone would use one for wild boar, though, because of the size and ferocity of them. Even .30-06 and 8x57mmIS are seen as not being enough to stop a charging male boar, which is why the caliber I use for them is 9.3x62mm...).Thomas.W talk 21:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about civilian semi-automatic AR-style rifles, is it? Felsic2 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops. You're active on so many articles that I failed to see which one this was. Assault rifles aren't usually used for hunting, no, since they're not sold to civilians, military rifles of all kinds have, however, always been used for "informal" hunting in times of war, to supplement the meager military rations. Thomas.W talk 07:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You're active on a lot of pages too! As for this discussion, the point is that assault rifles are designed and sold for the purpose of shooting people. So shooting people is not a "misuse" of the firearm, as RAF910 said it is. Since it is the intended purpose, it's logical to report on how well it accomplishes its intended purpose. Felsic2 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It is synthesis to assert that the purpose of firearms is shooting people, specifically. Firearms are sold for many purposes, including hunting animals, target practice, sport, and a myriad other purposes. Would you then say that pressure cookers are sold to kill people, too? When loaded with explosives, such as in Boston, they are. No. The primary purposes of pressure cookers is to cook food. The primary purpose of firearms is not to kill people. The number of firearms that are used to kill people annually amount to a very, very small percentage (perhaps 0.01%) of the firearms in existence. This is not in keeping with the preponderance of the uses of firearms, in the proportions of how they are used. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This article isn't about "firearms". It's about "assault rifles". If you can find a source giving a primary purpose for assault rifles that doesn't involve combat, then you'd have a case to make. Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yea. I think that's why literally hitler adopted the StG-44 for the SS, and the wehrmarcht. It's not because the stg-44 was a cheap, easy to mass produce killing machine with smaller, lighter cartridges than the k98 cartridge, allowing SS sturmtruppers to carry more bullets and fire them faster, without sacrificing lethality. One more part of the Nazi war machine designed to make killing cheaper, faster, and more efficient. And soviet russia and the US army didn't come to similar conclusions. It's... uhhh... help me out here. I don't think they're buying the "assault rifles were designed for hunting and target practice" thing.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Sir, you can name the new article as you see fit. Perhaps, simply using the name of this section, of this very talk page will suffice Assault Rifle's use in mass shootings and terrorist attacks. It seem quite pithy to me.--RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
We can drive off that bridge when we come to it. The first step is to find sources which talk about the actual use of assault rifles in the world. Who knows, maybe these weapons have never been used and are only significant as intricate mechanical wonders. Felsic2 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sir, you have obviously spent many years researching this subject. You have written many thousands of words on countless Wiki talk pages and noticeboards, all related to this very subject. You have provided many dozens, perhaps hundreds of references to support your positions. I have every confidence in your ability to create a comprehensive article. In fact, I believe you could easily create several related cross referenced articles.--RAF910 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You sure know a lot about me, or think you do. But I'm not the subject of this article, so let's leave that discussion to another page. Felsic2 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI per policy there should be a summary section in the parent article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Uses Suggestion[edit]

I think an encyclopedia article on a category subject like this article, to be comprehensive, should have a section(s) on types and uses. This article has types but I think is missing categories of uses, for a draft example: Military-Conventional War, Military-Guerrilla War, Terrorist, Criminal misuse, Sport shooting, Collectibles, et al; as summary sections with links to more detailed articles(all written over time). Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Felsic2 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


Add sources sources here
  • Time and again it’s the same. A lone gunman or a small group of killers with rifles commits spectacular crimes that seize the attention of the world. The list reaches back decades: the killing of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972; the school takeover in Beslan, Russia, in 2004; the attacks in Mumbai, India, in 2008; the mall assault in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2013; the killing of more than 100 people in Paris in 2015. Often the rifles are variants of the AK-47, the world’s most abundant firearm, an affordable and simple-to-use assault rifle of Soviet lineage that allows a few people to kill scores and menace hundreds, and fight head-to-head against modern soldiers and police forces.Chivers, C. J.; Futaki, Attila (2016-08-04). "How the AK-47 and AR-15 Evolved Into Rifles of Choice for Mass Killers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-08-05. 


There's no point arguing this in a vacuum. Let's find sources that talk about how assault rifles are used, and compile them here. Once we have some, we can summarize them. That's how Wikipedia articles should be written. Who nows, maybe we'll even come across some that talk about hunting with them. Felsic2 (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have every confidence in your ability to create a comprehensive article.--RAF910 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You actually can find sources about hunting with them, US soldiers goofing off are known to gather "meat for the tribe" by using grenade blank rounds to shoot the gun's cleaning rod out of the barrel. This is discouraged and you never get your cleaning rod back. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Highly biased source[edit]

  • 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)

Top Note: For the United States legal and political term, see assault weapon. Comment[edit]

Can this note be rewritten? In the article "assault weapon" the term is not specified to be a political term. The article specifies the term in Definitions and usage as being used in US laws, regulations, news media, gun manufacturers, military and by organizations, but the term is not described or defined as being as a political term.

There is a section on political issues but the term is never defined or described as a political term.

Suggestions: -rewrite the note to: For a United States term see assault weapon. -In the assault weapon article, add a definition and explanation of the term as also political term, to use terminology consistently between the 2 articles. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The hatnote should be neutral. Calling "assault weapon" a "political term" is a POV. Felsic2 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
"For a United States term for certain semi-automatic firearms" seems opaque.[10] How about a simple, "Not to be confused with", Template:Distinguish. Or "See also", Template:See also. Let's not oversimplify complex issues in a hatnote. Felsic2 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"Not to be confused with"! That would be wonderfully ironic, so it has that going for it. I added the phrase "for certain semi-automatic firearms" because that's what assault weapons are, in contrast to assault rifles which are capable of automatic or burst fire. So for something as short as a hatnote, I think that's a pretty good way to put it. Obviously though this is a controversial question. Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but "certain" is vague. If we want to be explanatory, I suggest "For semi-automatic versions, see...". However I think that my other two suggestions would be less controversial. Felsic2 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
No complaints? I'll use "see also". Felsic2 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Felsic2: I wasn't sure what you meant by your "other two suggestions". I guess I should have asked. So, what are they? "Not to be confused with" and "See also"? Of those two, I much prefer "not to be confused with". But I still think it's better to very briefly explain the difference in the hatnote, something along the lines of the previous version, such as "For the United States term for certain semi-automatic firearms". Because, like I said, that's the one big difference, in ten words or less, between assault weapons and assault rifles. Mudwater (Talk) 01:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
What's the one big difference? Felsic2 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The one big difference between assault weapons and assault rifles is that assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms. Assault rifles by contrast are capable of fully automatic and/or burst fire. Mudwater (Talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, but that doesn't seem like anything worth putting into a hatnote, which is just intended to make sure readers are in the article they were looking for. Felsic2 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The usual practice is for a hatnote to very briefly describe the subject of the article it links to, as an aid to the reader. All the more so here, where the two terms are often confused. Mudwater (Talk) 00:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Upon further reflection, a longer and more descriptive hatnote would be even better. Something like this:

This page is about automatic firerarms used by many military organizations. For semi-automatic firearms restricted by some United States laws, see Assault weapon.

Mudwater (Talk) 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That'd work. It's more neutral than what was there before. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. I've made the change, here. Thanks for the discussion, I definitely think this is an improvement from the way it used to be. Mudwater (Talk) 02:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

End New Break[edit]

  • Now that the top note has been so precisely worded. I think that we can delete the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section as it is no longer needed.--RAF910 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We definitely need to keep the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section of the article. That explains the difference a lot more clearly than the hotnote, which by its nature needs to be extremely brief. Assault rifles vs. assault weapons is a point of confusion for many people, so the article section can be particularly helpful to our readers. Mudwater (Talk) 11:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Then why do we need the top note?...The main advantage of internet encyclopedia like Wikipedia is the ability to link to related articles. If the reader wants more info they simply click the links. This way, the main or target article does not get cluttered superfluous, contradictory and confusing information.--RAF910 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In this case we really need both the hatnote and the explanatory section. There is nothing cluttered or superfluous about it. Again, this is a situation where significant confusion exists and the extra information is badly needed. There's no disadvantage to including it. I would encourage other interested editors to give their opinions about this also. Mudwater (Talk) 14:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not going to remove the tag or delete the section without consensus. I realize that there is significant confusion on this subject. I'm simply pointing out that oftentimes, the confusion is intentional.--RAF910 (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)