MarcSpaz wrote:What drives me nuts is that I have found no "industry definition" of an assault rifle or assault style rifle. It is a completely made-up, subjective opinion that changes by the minute depending on who you ask and when. I would think that an assault riffle would be any rifle used to commit an assault, no?
With regard to small arms manufacturing the only classes I found are...
pistols (variety)
carbines
rifles
shotguns
sub-machine guns
storm rifles
squad automatic weapons
general-purpose machine guns
Am I missing something?
Oh, right! Assault rifles are defined in 2 industries. I almost forgot media and legislation. Never mind. My mistake.
There is a military definition that's been around for decades (60's IIRC when the M16 was adopted...definition requires the ability to select fire...aka "machine gun"), but anything that qualified as one is heavily regulated under the NFA. They closed the registry for real assault weapons in 86'. As such, a real/legal assault weapon typically costs tens of thousands of dollars and can take upwards of 1-2years for the BATFE to approve the paperwork. The "assault rifle" definition comes from the shorter engagement ranges (primarily due to the increased effectiveness of medium range weapons/explosives that could be fitted to infantry/armor) for infantry that prompted the move from the larger/heavier but more powerful battle rifles to the smaller/lighter but much less capable at range assault rifles. The name was chosen by the Germans and their "storm" rifle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44 The Russians weren't far behind with the AK-47 (the real ones, not the look alike which don't have select fire but are what the media/politicians hold up as AK-47s). It should be noted that the Germans didn't issue that many of them because they filled a niche, they did not replace the battle rifles. The Russians eventually did, but their AK-47 did not push the concept as far as the American M16 would (nearly two decades later!) or as far as the Russians would with the AK-74 and the American M4.
The US military resisted this trend with the M14 for many reasons. One that can't be understated is that the US was woefully behind in state of the art because of the NFA (one of the military generals called up the president and accused him of treason in 34' because of the NFA...said even military small arms would fall behind our enemies by decades...he was proven right for anything the NFA touched). The M14 had a very short lifespan as a general issue small arm because of this, although the abundance of modernized M14s, AR10s, etc. serving as some variant of a "marksman" rifle on the battle field today shows that there is still some need to reach out.
It wasn't until later in 94' that politicians created a "assault weapon" category. It was and still is a complete fabrication which is why the definition isn't consistent and changes over time. Simple put, an assault weapon is anything they want to regulate or ban. They've been partially successful only because the average American doesn't understand the two primary changes that occurred in small arms design since the 40's. They are: materials and ergonomics. Every firearm, within recent memory, use to be made of wood and steel. While there were mechanical changes to how they functioned, that recipe didn't change. However, new materials started becoming available that dramatically changed firearm design. Aluminium, titanium, carbon fiber, polymers, rubbers, etc. These new materials freed up small arms designers to fix some of the traditional small arms problems, make the platforms lighter, etc. One significant change was ergonomics. Some work was done with the traditional rifles wood stock to make it better, but the inherent properties of the material (wood) limit what could be done. You see a few attempts (e.g. tommy guns, AKs), but a real focus ergonomics didn't arrive until designs like the AR15. The AR15 really pushed the limits of material usage in firearms and ergonomics. It also pushed mostly new concept of modularity. The design was so radically different that it took some time to catch on (old timers are a stubborn bunch
), but once it did it quickly became the best selling design in the US.
There is much confusion over the AR15 and similar modern designs because they look like or similar to their military counterparts. Kind of like how a HUMVEE can be purposed for either civilian or military use. The military adopted the AR15 design, but with their own specific requirements (which generally are not available to civilians). However, to the untrained eye, the two look identical set side by side. However, that's not just true of the AR15, but of all modern rifles. They all look similar because the human body hasn't changed since the focus of ergonomics. It's not like there is a sudden need for a top mounted pistol grip because we have mutants running around. The same is true of materials.
Saying that an AR15 isn't your grandfathers hunting rifle is like lamenting that the current generation Ford Focus isn't like a Model-T.
