Actually, assault rifle, is a term that dates back to WWII, and was first applied to the German MP43Stuart Mackey wrote:its used to distiguish automatic weapons from slower fed weapons. I dsuspect the term goes back a few decades.Stofsk wrote:What the hell is an "assault" weapon, anyway? When you commit assault with a weapon? Just another euphemism devised by boring politicians to make themselves look clever.
It was said to have been coined by Hitler himself after seeing the MP43 perform in a demonstration. Since it provided such vastly increased firepower, and was clearly much more useful for an assault than the old bolt action battle rifle, he christened it a "Sturmgewehr" - assault rifle.
The term "assault rifle" was used to describe a particular class of weapon: a selective fire rifle, firing an intermediate cartridge that was more powerful than a pistol round, but less powerful than a battle rifle cartridge. This rifle and cartridge combo would be capable of being used at ranges of 300-400 meters, unlike a submachine gun, which was strictly a close range weapon since it fired a pistol cartridge. But because it fired an intermediate cartridge, instead of a full power, battle rifle cartridge with a (seldom used) range of a mile, it would be controllable on full auto. Thus, when switched to full auto, it would provide dramatically increased firepower for the assault, and could do the job of a submachine gun. It was a weapon that combined the best features of a rifle and submachine gun, and was so practical as a military weapon, it wasn't long before the rest of the world's armies adopted similar weapons designed around the same guidelines.
But today, the term "assault weapon" is used by frankly ignorant media people and politicians - who don't know the first thing about firearms - to describe any weapon with a large magazine capacity that looks military. This is the basis for the current asinine "assault weapons ban" in the US that bans large magazine, pistol grips, folding or collapsing stocks, baynet lugs, flash hiders and other military type features.
This is why this weapon is legal for current manufacture and sale to civilians:
and this one isn't:
despite the fact that they are the same weapon. Despite being labeled "assault weapons" by ignorant reporters and politicians, neither one is a true assault rifle, as neither one is capable of being fired on full auto (though a full auto version is made by Sturm, Ruger & Co. it is not available for sale to civilians anyway, and is thus unaffected by the "assault weapons" ban). The military type features banned by the law were selected as "evil" because they give an overall military appearance to the weapon, and this was deemed a bad thing. It has nothing to do with whether or not this actually reduces crime. Take bayonet lugs, for example. They are one of the "evil" features, and were therefore banned. It is a federal offense to manufacture and sell to civilians any rifle with a bayonet lug today. No doubt countless lives have been saved by this regulation, which would otherwise have been lost in the terrible spate of drive by bayonetings that ocured in such huge numbers before the ban.
