Talk:Assault rifle/Archive 3

Assault Rifle's use in mass shootings and terrorist attacks
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 WikiProject Firearms "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)

ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE...

 * 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 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html 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) 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)

SOLUTION

 * 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
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)

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


 * 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: — 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

 * 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)


 * I think think the top note and section are both valuable in this encyclopedia article to explain the differences.
 * User:RAF910, I don't understand your comment "...oftentimes, the confusion is intentional", how does that opinion relate to this article?CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me spell it out for you...There are some editors who are doing everything in there power to convince Wikipedia readers that all scary looking semi-automatic rifle are assault rifle, no different than machineguns and should be banned.--RAF910 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for explaining. My perspective: 1. Editors can correct any errors that assault rifles and assault weapons are the same types of guns to try to educate readers and try to eliminate confusion with readers. I think the section in this article tries to describe the differences. I think that is a value of WP, stating the facts. 2. Bans/restrictions on guns or types of guns are a different subject, laws and judgements, decided by courts and legislatures and voters, like is described in the assault weapons article and other articles. I think the objective of an encyclopedia is to state the facts and opposing opinions. Readers can decide their position.  I don't like misconceptions being stated as facts, nor do I like censuring of facts, much as I may dislike the facts.CuriousMind01 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

People, stop beating around the bush and be frank for once: TeeTylerToe is showing, using (apparently) reliable sources, that what is accepted by most (including on this very article) as the first AR, was mainly used as a semi-auto rifle, with the secondary option to fire it in burst when the engagement ranges would get shorter.

If we cut to the chase, this is simply showing that the whole "AR MUST BE AUTOMATIC" argument of NRA activists is not as solid as they wish it was - it would change the criteria to "AR have to be technically capable of automatic or burst fire, regardless of recommended and actual usage" (pro-NRA phrasing) or "AR have to be technically capable of automatic or burst fire, but their recommended and actual usage may be primarily made of semi-auto fire" (pro-gun control phrasing). I understand the whole drama about guns in the US, but please do not use the global article on AR in english as a battleground for what is a strictly US-specific controversy. If AR were initially designed for semi-auto fire, or some designs are moving toward semi over burst/auto fire usage (which seems to be the case for some projects), it needs to be mentioned in the article about the bloody AR, no matter what's the latest trend on the US political scene.

A law can only regulate the technical element of guns anyway (the regulation about the use only works if the suspect is caught alive and only determines parole/years of prison) and the actual societal/political question about AR is about sustaining effective fire at medium range (short range already got handguns/ghetto SMGs and long range got hunting rifles), which is relying on very short bursts and semi fire, the rest being a matter of accuracy and precision at said range, so down to the energy carried by the round (caliber and muzzle velocity mostly). So the whole focus on the firing mode, trashing WP articles over it... C'mon guys. If the StG started as a semi-auto rifle with backup burst fire, until the modern AR designs (and later combat ranges) made burst fire / short bursts (in auto mode) their main firing usage, it's a valuable information about AR. 164.177.113.225 (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * First, TeeTylerToe has been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continuous uncooperative and unproductive editing, edit warring, tendentious edits, POV-pushing, talk page filibustering and lack of insight when clearly proven wrong by other reliable sources
 * Second, all assault rifles are designed to be fired primarily in semi-auto and only occasionally fired in full-auto (for emergencies). Why? Because, they overheat very quickly when fired in full-auto. Their chambers get so hot, so fast, that within 100 to 150 rounds of continuous fire the cartridges begin to cook-off. In fact, the sustained rate of fire for an assault rifle is only 12 to 15 rounds per minute, about the same as a bolt-action rifle.
 * Third, there is one simple reason why everyone ignored TTT demand that this info be included, because it's complete nonsense. TTT's argument is no different than someone saying that a JEEP Wrangler Rubicon is not an off-road vehicle. Because, it only has a part-time 4X4 drive-train.--RAF910 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:RAF910, your information in your second point above seems to be valid information to add into the article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias
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." http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121  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. http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the 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.  http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html 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 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?  http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/05/americas-first-assault-rifle-designed-world-war/ http://www.wideopenspaces.com/americas-first-assault-rifle-the-burton-1917-light-machine-rifle/ TeeTylerToe (talk) 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?

Discussion

 * 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." http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 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 (talk • contribs)
 * 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." http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/05/americas-first-assault-rifle-designed-world-war/ http://www.wideopenspaces.com/americas-first-assault-rifle-the-burton-1917-light-machine-rifle/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/04/04/the-winchester-machine-rifle-wwis-anti-balloon-assault-rifle/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21631/forgotten-weapons-americas-first-assault-rifle/ Winchester Repeating Arms Company By Herb Houze 978-0873497862. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs)
 * 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." TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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, 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" https://centerofthewest.org/explore/firearms/TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Term no longer used by the US military?
After looking through some US military documents in an attempt to make a point about the term "assault rifle," I discovered that the US military does not appear to use the term anymore. Weapons such as the M16A2 and M4 are referred to as "rifle" and "carbine," respectively. US military sources in the article that use the term "assault rifle" are all from the 1960s and 70s. In a few minutes of searching online, I couldn't find any official US military documents which used the term "assault rifle" newer than 1980. Some examples of modern usage are this training manual from 2006 (which has 125 occurrences of "rifle" but only one of "assault", in defining "assault course"), this description, this Marine Corps report from 2007, this training guide from 2008, and this Air Force training manual from 2013, all from .mil domains.

Do people think it's worth mentioning that at least the US military seems to have abandoned the term? Prior to looking into it just now, I was under the impression that "assault rifle" was a technical term in current use by at least the US military, and this article as it currently stands seems to back up that misunderstanding. I appreciate that the US military doesn't "own" the term, but it would be useful for people to know that it seems to be falling out of use as a technical term by one of the most significant users.

Thoughts?

Haxney (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's interesting research, but it is original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If some source could be found that makes the point directly then we coould include it. Felsic2 (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Assault rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616193104/http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Small%20Arms%20Trade_ch1_22%20Nov.pdf to http://www.oneworld-publications.com/pdfs/Small%20Arms%20Trade_ch1_22%20Nov.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602021550/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/product/weapon.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618165043/http://www.arsenal-bg.com:80/defense_police/5.56_arsenal_assault_rifle_ar-m1_ar-m1f.htm to http://www.arsenal-bg.com/defense_police/5.56_arsenal_assault_rifle_ar-m1_ar-m1f.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring
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)

Update...For informational purposes...TeeTylerToe has been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continuous uncooperative and unproductive editing, edit warring, tendentious edits, POV-pushing, talk page filibustering and lack of insight when clearly proven wrong by other reliable sources--RAF910 (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Update...For informational purposes...TeeTylerToe attempted to appeal his 6 month block. However, consensus not only upheld the block, it was upgraded to an indefinite block.--RAF910 (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He was given plenty of rope. - BilCat (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for sticking my nose into an old discussion here but actually MP44 is NOT the first assault rifle. The first one is Fedorov Avtomat, which was already used in WW1. And although FA was only manufactured in much smaller number, it already passed the stage of experimental already.

The amount of MP44, though greater than FA, was also very small compared to the total size of German soldiers and the total number of other rifles at that time. 27.64.87.238 (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Assault rifle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622011454/http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm to http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec03/Logistics_of_Invasion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151107045353/http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf to http://independencearmory.com/downloads/M14_Articles/American%20Rifleman%20-%20New%20Service%20Rifle_%20Amer.%20Rifleman%20June%2C%201957.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.izhmash.ru/eng/arc/021205.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

RS qualification of a submitted masters thesis
I think we need to delete a reference that is frequently cited. The ref in question is a masters thesis. Our guideline for identifying reliable sources discusses works of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and that section includes a restriction that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." In the article version linked in this sentence, the masters thesis in question is reference 63. To quote our text this reference is
 * "A thesis presented to the Faculty of the US Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE, Military History. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2006"

It was not for a PhD, but a masters. It isn't clear just what sort of "publication" this thesis has enjoyed. At present we have not been shown evidence that the thesis received any notice in subsequent scholarly works. Unless I'm missing something it does not pass our content guideline test as an RS and should therefore be deleted. I thought I'd start here to invite comment, before asking for outside opinion at the RSN. Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)   Input from anyone welcome, and specific ping to   NewsAndEventsGuy ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy-- 01:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep We don't care if it was published, we care if it was reviewed. As a review of the organizational culture and the M16 procurement within the US military, written by a student at their own staff college, I consider it highly relevant.
 * Also, if we're going to start being s--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)niffy about sources, then I'd look at the coffee table books and the NRA gung ho before this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree we should look at all the sources. This one was recently in play.   You might consider it "highly relevant", but our content guideline does not mention your name or opinion.  Rather a masters thesis must be "shown to have had significant scholarly influence".  Instead of arguing opinions whether an exception should be made, lets instead rely on the more objective measure already required by the content guideline... has this thesis been cited anywhere else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but it does not necessarily fulfill the sourcing requirement for any challenged material Wp:RS describes a requirement for a source to fulfill wp:ver for material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. I don't see anywhere that it is a requirement for the presence of per se of the source in Wikipedia.  So, when not being depended on for fulfilling wp:ver on challenged material, IMHO presence of the source becomes a matter of editorial discretion.  IMO a good guide for the latter is expertise and objectivity with regard to the subject, and at first glance this looks good in that respect.  North8000  (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * KEEP The Influence of Organizational Culture on the Acquisition of the M16 Rifle is not just a masters thesis sitting in some college library collecting dust. It is a book, no different than every other book that is commonly used as references on Wiki, you can even buy it on Amazon if you want. https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Organizational-Culture-Acquisition-Rifle/dp/1249368650  Also, it is used as a source in many other books. Therefore, it more than meets the reliable source standards.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Battle rifles and the AK-47
The section "Battle rifles" does not clearly state what a battle rifle is; that should be fixed. Also, isn't the AK-47 a battle rifle, because of its .30 caliber round? AA Quantum (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The AK round is 7.62x39mm while the Russian rifle round is 7.62x54mm R, it's a "fat" intermediate round like .300 AAC Blackout or 9x39mm. It's the same as the .50 AE (12.7x33mm) round fired by the Desert Eagle still being a pistol round despite being .50 calibre, there's more to what type of round it is than just the width. Bones Jones (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Characteristics
[This edit] was reverted, so let's discuss it. My opinion is that because certain states have passed laws defining semi-automatic rifles as assault weapons, and since this is a central part of the gun control debate, then it's notable enough to include in this article. This gets into the messy territory of what is the "correct" definition of an assault rifle, but we could include it either as a common misconception or to illustrate the fact that there is disagreement over what the term encompasses. –dlthewave ☎ 22:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That edit was reverted because it was on the wrong article. Don't confuse assault rifle (historical military) and assault weapon (US politics). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if people actually read these articles before editing. The article already has an "Assault Weapon Hatnote" and the "Distinction from assault weapons" section. Also, the section directly above this section, on this very talk page, is called "Assault Weapon section". So, to complain that it's not discussed, is ridiculous.--RAF910 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. One of the sources used "assault rifle" which threw me off. –dlthewave ☎ 17:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Assault Weapon section
The primary subject of this article is Assault rifles. Assault Weapons is at best a subordinate subject matter. We probably shouldn't even mention Assault Weapons in this article (with the exception of the hat-note and a see also link). I recommend that we remove the section altogether in order to remove any possible confusion or ambiguity. Please comment below...


 * Support per my statement above --RAF910 (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, no. The "possible confusion or ambiguity" already exists, regardless of what WP does.  If we don't explain it, we can actually make it worse, besides simply being less informative.  There's zero benefit to remove it, and some harm.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, that clarification (Assault Rifle) belongs near the top, so readers don't spend extra time reading through the wrong article. Per WP:BRD, we should probably revert it being moved to the end pending discussion here.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverted to put Etymology back to top, per normal for WP articles, per above. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The section wasn't titled etymology before, and it's the etymology of a totally different term. Putting it at the top would require combining it with the "Characteristics" section since that actually defines the term "assault rifle" rather than the term "assault weapon." Otherwise it's starting the article out talking about something else entirely for four paragraphs: it'd be like starting an article on dogs by defining at length what a cat is. Bones Jones (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I understand the reasoning behind the recent change done by, I must point out that changing text while it's under discussion without consensus is normally seen as disruptive. Also, the analogy of "cat" in a "dog" article is specious, as virtually no readers confuse dogs and cats, while the confusion between assault rifle and assault weapon is significant both in occurrence and consequences; leaving it to the very end is of poor service to readers that are confused, and can even make that confusion worse.  This pre-consensus change should be reverted, per WP:BRD and to avoid promoting misinformation to readers.
 * For discussion, I'm okay with changing the heading to "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" as suggested, and for moving it just after the "Characteristics" section, but certainly not to moving it to the very end; we must inform the readers of this basic distinction. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  18:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, it should be moved back to before the edit changing the section title and moving it to the top was made while it's being discussed, as this disagreement is the result of that change being made.
 * And fine, it's like starting an article about dogs by describing at length what a dingo or wolf is, if you're being picky. I don't think "confusion" is a valid reason to start out not talking about what the article's actual subject is, the table of contents is there for a reason and is above everything else anyway. Bones Jones (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The BRD process includes one revert, not zero. The bold change to dismiss Assault Weapon was done, reverted, and now discussed.  Further edits are counter to BRD.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think something brief explaining that they are two different things should be included. And then just a link to the other topic. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm generally okay with any version of this; just not one that relegates the difference to the end of the article. Both "pro" and "anti" gun law POV's can benefit from noting there is a significance difference between the two, while no one benefits from letting that confusion be ongoing.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment...Hatnote states..."Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article or section of an article (hence the name "hat"). Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because they were redirected, because the sought article uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because the sought article and the article with the hatnote have similar names. Hatnotes provide links to the possibly sought article or to a disambiguation page.

The article already has a Hatnote at the very top of the article and it is the very first thing that the user reads (with link to the assault weapons page)..."This article is about automatic firearms used by many military organizations. For semi-automatic firearms restricted by some United States laws, see assault weapon."...A large section describing "assault weapons" and the legalities of owning them is not needed in this the "assault rifle" article. --RAF910 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with RAF910 just above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In my view it's highly desirable to have a section explaining the differences between the two types of firearms, and "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" is a good name for that section. The hatnote is really good, but it's not enough. The two terms are often confused with each other, and the news media often refer to assault weapons as assault rifles. A section that un-confuses the reader is needed, and can of course maintain a neutral point of view. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish to argue that more often than not, the term "assault rifle" is now more commonly used in practice to mean "assault weapon". The two terms have a critical distinction that in practice is no longer observed and to not clearly address this at the very top of the article continues to add to the confusion. Nearly all news outlets refer to the AR-15 as an assault rifle, so if one were to google "assault rifle" and land on this page and read the top definition one would assume that the AR-15 is an automatic rifle, a machine gun. The About reference at the top pointing to assault weapon is not in itself clear to someone who does not already know the distinction because it is also common to refer to assault weapons as "military rifles". I think this article should be changed to reflect this change in common meaning by starting off with a clarification that the term has changed in how it is applied and meant. Here are plenty of articles which say "assault rifle" but actually are referring to semi-automatic rifles:         jayphelps (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Josh Sugarman?
Is it possible to have any discussion of this subject without reference to Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center and his advocacy of using public confusion about the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" to advance the agenda of the gun control lobby? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I notice that the history of the name/term get a lot of text here. There's nothing about it in the body, and Hitler isn't mentioned. So, this WP:LEAD can be improved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw a simple and bold solution, move this text to a new section at the top of the article, since the origin of the term is not discussed otherwise. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)