Enough Nonsense; What is an "Assault Rifle"?
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 03. 2024
- Want to see a proper assault rifle in action (a SIG 540)? Check it out right now:
forgottenweapons.vhx.tv/video...
The technical definition of an "assault rifle" is pretty simple and straightforward. It's a shoulder-fired rifle with three elements:
* Capable of fully automatic fire
* Uses detachable magazines
* Chambered for an intermediate cartridge
That's it, and a rifle that meets those criteria can be accurately described as an assault rifle. Unfortunately, this terminology was confused by legislation in the 80s and 90s (and continued incorrect use today) trying to equate scary-looking semiautomatic firearms with military arms under the blanket heading of "assault weapons".
utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
As a German, I can assure everyone that the German word 'Sturm' does indeed mean 'assault' in any military context. It would even be a translation error to translate 'Sturmgewehr' into 'storm rifle' because rifles have nothing to do with the weather.
Stormtrooper have nothing to do with the weather too. "Storm" in English isn't used as a synonym to "assault" a lot nowadays, but it's actually still is.
Storm is a verb in English, even. "To storm the trenches" doesn't mean that you're gonna get a bunch of wizards to shoot lightning all over the place, does it? This is the kind of spurious definition argument that makes gun nuts look crazy.
sekundiert
However ‘storming the breach’ is a perfect english military term. It basically indicates what ‘sturm’ wants to convey. So storm rifle is actually not incorrect.
Original designation was Maschinenkarabiner (machine carbine), Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) was coined by the Propagandaministerium
It's the opposite of an apepper rifle.
gdi this was stupid why did i like it lol
In turn, the apepper rifle evolves into the apepperbox rifle.
Curse you and your blasted puns.
Here ya jackass, take my disappointed angry like
But seriously that was terrible, like something my dad would say. Oh no, I say things like that!
Yes sir
I feel like Ian deserves some serious kudos here for walking the finest possible line in this video and staying true to his aim of not overtly politicizing his channel. That was a really expert job right there and it is appreciated!
Couldn't agree more! :)
Meh, I think it's a bit cowardly not to wade in when you have a big platform and a lot of credibility. Implies you're more interested in profits than ethics, but, of course, it's his choice to make. Given the government is doing a genocide at the moment, I'm angry that the whole of CZcams isn't all over it. Imagine if all the creators were like "nope, no more videos except genocide videos till you guys stop it." A single big creator could get that going, But apparently everyone likes dollars and clicks more than soul.
@@Innomen wait, please explain this genocide. i assume you mean that this is in the US. I genuinely am at a loss for what you are referring to.
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 /points at the children in gaza being killed at a faster rate than the camps in ww2 entirely because of political cover and material aid provided by American tax dollars. r/Israelexposed
@@InnomenI think you have a lot to learn about "credibility" sir.
Ian is using the proper terminology for firearms as they are defined. The press , politicians, and others are the ones who miss use terms for their own purposes .
Yeah and 90% of online 2 A bros deny it’s a real classification. They’re about as sharp as the politicians.
It is not the press, politicians, and 'others' who are constantly claiming that the term 'assault rifle' is completely fictitious and simply has no definition.
Because politicians use the term assualt weapon, which has a bunch of legal definitions based on the region your in.
Assualt rifle =/= assualt weapon.
@@ghostpiratelechuck2259Absolutely.
It’s crazy how they have this superiority complex when in reality they’re not much better. Do they even realize they’re obfuscating? Or is it just so normalized that it’s subconscious?
@@evanr5871 It feels like they’re sincere.
Likely just been propagated in the culture so much folks just repeat it.
A video on “intermediate cartridges” and how they are pretty hard to define would be good.
To me, the definition is fundamentally flawed.
It would be better to define three classes of RIFLE ammunitions. Defined by the energy at the muzzle, with a reasonably sized barrel.
1) under 2200 joules (7.92mm Kurz, 5.56 NATO, 7.62X39... practically the almost totality of the intermediate cartridges effectively adopted). They are optimal for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, unsuited for GPMG.
2) from 2200 to 3000 joules (all the classic 6.5mm service rounds, 30-30, .30 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 LICC...). They are decent for individual automatic fire, optimal for SAW, decent for GPMG.
3) over 3000 joules (7.92mm Mauser, .303 British, 30-06, 7.62 NATO, .277 Fury, 6.5mm Creedmoor...). They are unsuited for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, optimal for GPMG.
.30 carbine is the interesting one. You could get similar energy to a .30 carbine in a 10mm, and .30 carbine handguns exist. At the same time, .30 carbine is awkward to use in a handgun, it is pretty close to some indisputably intermediate calibers, and was originally designed for a rifle.
If .30 carbine is an intermediate caliber, then the M2 carbine is an assault rifle.
I feel like the idea of an intermediate cartridge is less about the cartridge's inherent characteristics and more about what kind of system it's going into.
If it's made for comparatively lower recoil and higher magazine capacity with the intent for greater volume of fire, but still retaining superior armor penetration and effective range past pistol caliber territory, that's an intermediate rifle cartridge.
Putting hard numbers like what specific diameter bullet or what joules is going to create trouble.
@@davidn4956there’s already “trouble”, hence the need for the video
@@doublepiedavid8908 Despite having been made specifically for a carbine, and descending from a class of rifle ammo (those for the Winchester Model 1907) it's normally considered more akin to a pistol round. 7.5 FK, that's specifically a semiauto pistol cartridge, is more powerful than .30 Carbine for the same barrel length.
It's not an unicum. Much of the classic cartridges of lever action rifles are less powerful than a modern .357 Mag.
"Storm" is a synonym for attack or assault in a military context.
"Stormtroopers" are not named after weather formations. Neither is the "storm rifle."
Amen. Seriously, how left-brained do you have to be to not recognise the synonym (or, at least, the metaphor)? "ACK-SHYUALLY, 'STURM' TRANSLATES TO TO 'STORM' IN ENGLISH, NOT ASSAULT..."
To be fair, the practice of assaulting or storming positions is probably named after intense wheather patterns.
That said, "sturmgewehr" obviously implies that specific context, and not the weather pattern.
If it did, we'd associate line throwing equipment or signal guns with the term, or guns used for cloud seeding, not select- fire hole punchers with detachable magazines full of intermediate cartridges.
Those hole- punchers arguably have limited utility in mitigating the effects of intense weather on the practice of navigating the seas, and are pretty useless against thunderstorms on land.
@@hoilst265mid wit reply
@@hoilst265mid. Wit. Reply.
@nos9784 It's another example of how other languages also have times where context is relevant to a statement. For instance if I said "happy birthday" to a non English speaker, I could be talking about a day in which I gave birth, a day in which a loved one gave birth, a day on the anniversary of someone's birth (although you have to understand the cultural context to get that one) I could also be observing an arbitrary day celebrating fertility. These all make sense to call Birthday in a purely literal sense, but as far as people actually talking, go everyone would wonder what you're on.
I think it's well-established that the AR in AR-15 stands for "Armadillo Rifle", not "Assault Rifle" like many claim, and Eugene Stoner was a key figure in the Third Armadillo War, allowing humans to flourish in Texas.
If we could go back in time and decide to call the Armalite AR-series something else, it would avoid a lot of present-day misunderstanding.
@@williambefort5327 Honestly, he probably thought he was being clever with the ambiguity of the acronym. I agree though, that the name makes it easier to scare the masses.
Has anyone actually provided proof that it's not Assault Rifle, though? ArmaLite started marketing the AR-10 as a do-it-all firearm checking all of the assault rifle boxes just like the SG-42, FAMAS, Galil, etc. If it stood for ArmaLite Rifle why did Colt keep the name AR-10 and AR-15 when it bought the rights
It's just short for armalite. The AR-9 is a shotgun for example.
@@williambefort5327 I prefer education as being superior to time travel. Besides, there will always be self-serving people who intentionally mislabeled things they support and oppose.
I am no gun owner and no knowlege of guns but I find this video very objective and professional and super informative. Thank you.
in case you were wondering: The English definition for "storm" in an 'attacking' or military sense is: a direct assault by troops on a fortified place. -verb
👎👎👎 Buy, borrow or steal a gun NOW.
I love that when Ian has a chip on his shoulder even towards his own audience, he handles with with education rather than the typical go to youtuber method of shaming or insulting while still telling you to like and subscribe.
Like that time we freaked out when he said that bolt-action rifles were obsolete.
@@jayteegamblewhat video was that and what context? I'm genuinely curious. In my opinion, for military applications that statement could be valid. For civilian / hunting, that statement would be silly.
@Gojiro7 The reason it's so rare for people to react in this way is because the two pre-requisites are 1. being right and 2. being educated, both of which are incredibly rare among typical youtubers.
semi auto rifles are more effective fired semi auto anyway, so for the society debate its borderline just a technicality
@@jayteegamble RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
The missed point is Ian didn't call the NARP an assault rifle, Beretta did. New Assault Rifle Program. Heaven forbid you use the name the designer gave it.
You didn't watch the video, did you?
It’s contentious because the people Ian vote for try to take rights away with the words they use.
@@dontworrybout2664 You are making an unfounded political assumption.
@dontworrybout2664 put down the crack pipe
@@dontworrybout2664Has Ian ever even stated which way he votes? The only things vaguely political I've heard from him are a general distaste and skepticism for gun control whenever he discusses it, and "I'm not a communist" and "I'm not a Nazi". That's pretty broad.
And I'm a pro-gun leftist so it's not exactly that easy to pin someone down from one issue.
Thank goodness for somebody who talks common sense about "Assault Rifles". Ian has it spot on, unlike a lot of politicians.
👍
I’ve heard many a gun enthusiast say that any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon. So, Ian is actually correcting people on both sides of the issue.
@@jasongcrow5313assault weapon is in fact a made up term that can change depending on the politician that's using it. Assault rifle is a real military term in reference to select fire intermediate cartridge thats mag fed.
Way back when assault weapon was introduced in an article by a control advocate. Their intent was that they could conflate the two to confuse people. So that regardless which was used. = Scary black rifle bad. Civilians must not have.
Politicians get their information from tv, movies, and ignorant aids.
@@jasongcrow5313 And almost everyone modern pro-2A has claimed that the term 'assault rifle' is completely made up, and has no definition. Hence, this video to explain it.
Hi, german here.
"Sturmgewehr", would very much translate to "Assault Rifle"
thank you for your time
As a speaker of German, Sturm refers to assault, as in English, when one says "he stormed in." So in that sense the storm/Sturm is a common cognate pair, in both specific (weather) and wider (to attack, burst in) meanings. Although perhaps a German calque (not sure), in English when we refer to stormtroopers, we are referring to shock or assault forces, and not referring to some type of weather or climate soldier. Assault is a romance-originating word, with no relation to the weather context.
Yes, both of Storm and Sturm's meanings seem to match, the only thing is that we rarely use Storm to mean... Like attacking a position. It can be used that way, but it's gotten less and less common, so it makes sense to call it an Assault Rifle in English, because it is used more often.
Stormy weather means the weather is attacking us, seems like a perfectly German turn of phrase to me
So I always assumed that "attack" was the first meaning of sturm in German 🤷🏻♂️
As a fun fact, even the Russians use "Sturm" as a word for "Assault".
Lmao bro none of use are German and we KNOW what Sturm means
A shock troop batailon was called "Sturmbataillon" in WW1. So yes, storm and Sturm also translate to each other on this context.
I think Assault Rifle is easier to say than "Ass Blaster of Select-Fire Variety That Is Chambered In Normal Ammo And Is Mainly Used By The Militaries"
But the abbreviation rolls so easy of the tounge!
ABoSFVTICINAAMUBTM.
Smooth as silk when you are piss drunk!
I would love that on a shirt. Or perhaps an April Fool's video from Ian describing said Ass Blaster.
"Ass blaster of select fire variety" sounds badass af ngl
Paraphrasing Ambrose Bierce - Assault Weapon: "The style of gun used by guards at the homes of the politicians who say this style of gun is unnecessary for home defense."
XD
Tons of respect to Ian for his well thought out and disarming approach. As always, he handles such contentious topics so smoothly.
Gotta hand it to Ian, he is an engineer first, gun enthusiast second. When you have proper integrity, you call out the subject as it is and as it is meant to be. No politics, no bias, involved.
5:04 "Because to do otherwise would be to essentially surrender use of language to people who are deliberately misusing it."
Thank you for stating this so concisely.
There's this wild trend recently of self-and-peer censorship, where people seem to be trying to bully others out of using certain words, as though the words themselves have magical powers, and merely uttering them alters the fabric of reality, regardless of the context and intent within which they are being used. We should not accede to this kind of madness, no matter what your political persuasions are otherwise.
Klaatu barada nikto-are-you-for-real? The words matter. A LOT. You're making the right point, we shouldn't cede to this garbage, but words alone without context DO have magic powers. They DO shape reality, at least the reality of the person speaking/thinking them. They shape your brain and how you think. This is why you need to be specific about them and not let people change the meaning willynilly. The battle over the words is as important as the battle over the object itself. Censorship is a form of mind control. One side seems to understand this much better than the other, and that's why they're constantly trying to change up the terms and meanings, not just in guns, but EVERYTHING. George Carlin was on the ball with this when he talked about "soft language". You change the language, you change the reality around it.
Well put. It’s beyond politics and social matters, it’s an unwillingness for people to educate and understand and accept the simplicity of ignorance. You don’t have to love guns to understand the harm arrogance and oversimplifying can have
insane
Xaquin!
Words shape the way people think, so if words are being used to subjugate or demean a minority group, then there is in fact a good reason to discourage their use, c.f. The N-word or the R-word. If a word is simply descriptive, such as assault rifle, then that doesn't apply.
Thanks to the animated show Futurama we know that technically correct is the best kind of correct
I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to change the colour of the paper that regulation was written on. We kept it grey.
Thank you, Bureaucrat Conrad
Best show
@@dongatello6969yes, it's a direct quote from the show.
I'm not familiar with the quote but I am totally using henceforth!
Ian, as always a spot on delve into things. It’s worth mentioning that your short vid is getting a lot of play and providing you additional exposure which I hope is welcomed.
Great job of describing what defines an assault rifle and what isn't. Love your channel and keep up the good work.
It is surprising that you see yourself obligated to make a video like this; explaining what a definition is and why we shouldn’t fall for the deliberate misuse of the language… thanks Ian McCollum for you amazing work
"He's only an expert in his field, whereas I have done over 15 minutes of Wikipedia research!! I better correct his use of language."
I'm not saying the appeal to authority is ever justified alone, but... gosh it takes some gumption to step up here.
Not really, We are now in the age of post truth and "alternative facts" where lies and liars are now allowed to spew their lies freely and with little challenge.
@@kane357lynch I don't know if there is an academic field of study that would directly apply to Ian (may the field of historian?). Just watching a few of Forgotten Weapons videos, you should be able to pick up on how Ian go's over not just the firearm in front of the camera. But the company that made it, why they made it, who they made it for, what political agendas where going on at the time that would have influenced the development of the gun, etc... Ian also has written/co-authored multiple books about firearms. I can think of no other word to describe Ian's knowledge of firearms other than "expert". He's not some gun nut making forgettable infotainment. His channel is an encyclopedia of firearms. And I've even referenced his videos before making some purchases myself.
@@kane357lynch Firearms history. Especially French firearms history.
I think he already made a video explaing various terms and I had myself some misconceptions because well, how I could explain to a friend the difference between an SMG and an AR... or a machinegun or a Battle Rifle ...
Yeah that's not easy at all when you don't know yourself the real difference.
So when I see this channel there is a lot of useful information, and Ian tends to lean around history and engineering which are why I do like the channel.
It amazes me how many people with decades in the industry still get hot-headed about using Assault Rifle in its correct context.
It seems to me most people own guns because the feel insecure. Being triggered by not being able to control how people speak is exactly the behavior I expect and is common place.
@@JokerFace090it's because the anti gun movement have been calling things "assault weapons" in order to get support to ban them for 40 years what's their definition of assault weapon? Anything they can list on a piece of legislation to ban, a ruger 10/22 is an assault weapon to them, they would designated a tube fed semi auto marlin 22 as an assault weapon if they could.
@@JokerFace090 it amazes me how someone on the industry for decades still gets upset if someone calls anything with rear wheel drive a muscle car
@@JokerFace090 "It seems to me most tran-people change their names because they feel insecure. Being triggered by not being able to control how people speak is exactly the behavior I expect and is common place."
@@JokerFace090 most people own firearms because we feel insecure?
Lol, thats the funniest thing ive read all day there snowflake!
Videos like this are why I love this channel.
I like and appreciate your emphasis on using technical terms correctly. This was an illuminating video. Thank you for creating it.
But Sturm literally does mean assault, as it literally literally translates to "storm" as in, "to storm the gates" etc...
It means assault.
Insofar as "literal translation" is even a sensical concept, sturm literally translates to storm in both the weather and military contexts. Both languages have the same meanings. They're just used with different frequencies.
I forget what the word is but there's a word for words that can have diffrent meanings like Storm(weather) and Storm(to assault, to march into and conquer)
@@sheilaolfieway1885Homonym
Not quite true, in German to storm the gates and storm trooper are different. Blitzkrieg just like the name Blitzen is lightning like the storm and means to be fast like lightning. So storm rifle is what storm troopers used and the storm trooper moved fast, unstoppable and wreaked devastation like a storm.
@@somethinsomethin7243No.
Thank you Ian. I have this argument many times with people. The term became politicized and some people swear it doesn't exist but I have heard that term for many decades.
Are you talking about assault rifle? Or assault weapon? The later is the politicized term that doesn't exist.
Technically, it's a politicized term that exists, but doesn't MEAN anything@@brohanfromrohan5771. I hate to be that guy, but these jerks love to play language games, so if you're not extremely, stupidly precise and exacting, they'll use it against you.
AGREE. ..but you left out man of honor as well.
@brohanfromrohan5771 Semantic nonsense, most politicians use the term interchangeable, most politicians also can't tie there shoes, I have always called it "assault rifle, but I understand what assault weapons is meant to mean, but I have never encounter any one who deny the existence of assault weapons, who have accepted the correction to Rifle.
I have 1000s of gun magazines that belonged to my grandfather, uncle and my dad going back to 1954. Around the late 1970s manufactures started advertising some of their rifles as "Assault Rifles".
Thank you for making this video. It is informative to those more familiar with the term, and those using it incorrectly.
Thanks for making this short and to the point
Straight forward and dead honest. I wish everyone on youtube was the same way.
wrong
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@@SoloRenegade You clearly don't know what you're talking about. None of the weapons you mention fire intermediate calibers (.30 carbine is iffy) and those weapons are all semi auto. You even mentioned the M1A which is the semi-auto only, civilian version of the M14.
@@seanherrmann6301 .308 is intermediate. Compare it to 7mm, .30-06, .300, .338, .416, .50cal, etc. and prove me wrong, fi you can.
10/22 can be select fire and .22lr is a rifle round of the same size as .223 and has been used by military forces.
" You even mentioned the M1A which is the semi-auto only, civilian version of the M14."
you're such an idiot. Did you know the AR15 is the semi-auto only version of teh M16, yet can be made select fire with ease none the less? But according to you the M14 isn't an assault rifle, as .308 isn't intermediate, according to you.
Not ONE person in the comments of this video has been able to prove me wrong with their childish understanding of defintions, law, and firearms.
In Czech we have term "útočná puška", which literally translates into assault rifle. Definition of it is pretty close to what Ian describes in the beggining and goes as follows:
Cathegory of infantry weapons firing a round of medium ballistic performance, capable of firing well-aimed rounds at long range without solid support* and bursts at shorter range. It differs from the submachine gun in that it does not use pistol but shortened rifle cartridges.
Solid support means that it doesn't have to be mounted, or otherwise secured for stable discharge. It still can have buttstock, however its presence is not a condition.
Example of shortened rifle cartridge is given as 7,62x39mm
the fact that we have to look up exactly what is means means the term is too generalized. Automatic Carbine makes more sense.
@@mortagagedfreemen323 no, it's only matter of your knowledge. When you know context of where the name came from, the Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle, with Kurzpatrone which was supposed to be *intermediate* between 7.92x57 and 9x19, it is extremely easy to know which round is intermediate and which isn't. It's very simple. All the rest is just muddling the waters by people arguing political matters and mixing up law terms with military technology terms.
@@mortagagedfreemen323false. This is an efficacy issue, ppl should know what these things are without the confusing jargon, "assault rifle" makes perfect sense.
But your vz. 58 used to be called a submachine gun - samopal
@@hoppinggnomethe4154Samopal can also be assault rifle although that feels somehow archaic nowadays.
Translated directly it means selfshooter.
The sub in submachine gun points to compact pistol cartridge automatic gun while Samopal only tells you it shoots automatic and that it is some kind of personal firearm.
Very interesting and informative. I enjoy your work.
Great video and of course you’re one of the best people to explain this.
Finland here. We use the Finnish word "Rynnäkkökivääri" to describe the purpose of the rifle i.e. "to assault/storm an enemy position". Rynnäkkö = Assault. Kivääri = Rifle. -> RK.
And "kivääri" comes from the Swedish "gevär"/German "Gewehr" - would I be correct in assuming that Finnish has no or only a few words starting with a hard g-sound?
Absolutely, I love sanity!
Even Google translate is in full agreement.
Also mostly the media does make the difference between an assault rifle vs some select fire weapon.
Eyee was looking for this answer. RK is a pretty great example for sure.
Appreciate you making the distinction clear between what is truly an "assault rifle" in it's technical definition and what many try to use the term "assault weapon" for in their legislative agendas. The confusion between the two terms has become so ubiquitous that even people who should know better can sometimes use the terms interchangeably, something I usually try to correct when I can. At this point I fear that it's a losing battle, but it's still worth the effort to make sure the terms are used correctly; after all, so many pieces of legislation and rule-making use technical terms that they don't seem to fully understand, and hence have far-reaching (and often unintended) consequences.
It's not surprising it's a losing battle when frankly the difference between an AR-15 assault rifle and AR-15 "not assault rifle" is so minute that you could convert between the two with a single part. It's insanity seeing people insist there is some massive gulf of difference between the two and on the same breath talk about drop in auto sears without a hint of irony.
The instant legislation was enacted that "defined" an "assault rifle" in a contradictory manner to the actual technical definition, this battle was lost, I'm afraid.
Assault shaker?
@@TheGrandslam89 You have one side who wants to defend the rights they currently have
You have another that wants to abolish it and take full control of that right.
The process of that set of laws was never about being technically correct, it was always a negoitation between a stronger party and a weaker one
@@TheGrandslam89i disagree. The term "assault weapon" in legal context (like in my California) is defined by not by only functional features (center fire, semi automatic, and magazine fed), but also by aesthetic and ergonomic features (pistol grips, forward grips, collapsible stocks). So we have the bizarre category of "featureless" not-assault weapons because of the arbitrary nature of the political term. This is in contrast to the purely functional definition given for "assault rifle."
What one item can i add to an AR-15 to convert to fully automatic? I think you'd also need to add the selector switch to whatever you had in mind.
Very good presentation and well said keep up the great work
I always like it when Ian tells us about terminology!
The Elbonian Assault Rifle comes with a lever to change between auto and semi but it only ever works in 3 round bursts, and it has interchangable barrels for 556 and .22 because they don't want to spend too much on ammo
I thought it wasn't so much a three round burst as that the rifle jammed after the third round of auto fire.
Does it fire on fully semi automatic?
@@hughbrackett343 haha the economy stoppage
@@timcheeseman2956Private, did you just fire our entire year of budget?
www.indaginibalistiche.it/utlities/manuali/hk_ak4_SV.pdf
Look at page 75 to 82.
Probably used by the elbonian defence forces.
The term "assault weapon" was used alongside "assault-style rifle" by publications in the 70s and 80s to describe semi-auto facsimiles or replicas of actual military assault rifles. The genesis rifle was likely the Colt SP-1 and everybody else wanted to get into it and made semi-only sporting versions of military patterned assault rifles. Thus, "assault weapon" became an umbrella term for rifles with military appearance and certain features but not a vintage or old war surplus such as the Garand or the M1 Carbine.
The term then morphed into what we know today since they wanted to ban guns based on appearance and handling to some extent. I remember a video from the 90s where a guy took a semi auto/self loading hunting rifle and then put black polymer furniture, a slightly larger magazine, and a pistol grip to demonstrate the absurdity of banning guns based on appearance.
On another note, I sort of prefer to say "self loading" over "semi auto" because it describes what it does. Also, it is interesting that we say "semi automatic pistols" when historically any self loading pistol is "automatic" because it can cycle by itself, hence the term, and it was used because nobody expects a pistol to be in full auto fashion; those things would be "machine pistols." Same deal with shotguns--there are very few full auto shotguns.
even the NRA mags rom the late 70s that had ads used those terms
@@shawnschaitel838 The NRA was also in favor of sensible firearm regulation, until the late 70s or early 80s. Looking at old documents/ads/magazines is informative to how the gun industry/lobby used to see itself, and to police itself. Then, for whatever reason, they took a pivot towards the not one step backwards slippery slope position, and lobbied the supreme court to re-interpret the 2nd amendment.
Now we're in this dystopian situation where, people will argue that "assault rifles" are not a thing, and refuse to acknowledge that even civilian "sporting" versions of assault rifles are no more capable of carnage in the hands of a lunatic, than a hammer.
The term “autoloading” is historically correct, it’s what I’ve started using.
Well then, educate yourself about automatic pistols, G18 being one of them.
Just because American used terms sucks, you don't get to decide real terms.
@@AKUJIVALDO Those are "machine pistols." Historically, "automatic pistols" refer to autoloading pistols and that is generally still true today.
Nice explanation. I appreciate the calm factual presentation.
Ian, thank you!
I, for one (hopefully of most) am in TOTAL agreement with your definition of "Assault Rifle"!😃😃😃
A term that MANY, esp the media and politicians, use incorrectly.🤢🤢🥶🥶
Ian, just for your personal information reservoir, the technical definition for “Assault Rifle” in official US Military parlance is essentially identical to the definition you used.
The official source of this definition in US Military doctrinal language is: Defense Intelligence Agency publication DST-1110H-394-76 “Small Arms Identification Guide”
I am guessing he already knows this.
@@laramyelliott2903Yes, this is more for the benefit of all the other dumdum commenters who still think assault rifle is a made up term invented by Obama or Jane Fonda or Alec Baldwin.
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridge" (directly from the document you reference) so i disagree the description is "essentially identical"
HR 3355 (AWB) defines 'Semi-automatic Assault Weapons' (ive listed the particulars in the thread a couple times) although the bill is no longer legal, the term is still defined in us law. This includes rifles as well as pistols and shotguns
So the idea that one is 'right' and one is 'wrong' shows me how many people don't do their homework.
both are valid in the fact one is generally accepted and one is a legal definition
Continue to use 'Assault' conflates these two definitions, and the general public (who dont know any better) will vote for assault weapon bans thinking that they are banning fully auto weapons (which are already restricted since 1934)
I’m very glad you made this video. Now we have a short, easy to understand video from a credible, expert source to send to people who don’t understand what “assault rifle” means.
Good point. I know he's gone over this before but it's nice to have it in one succinct video that's gonna get a lot of views.
It's the perfect counter to these "Sandy Hook Promise" ads I'm seeing. Between those and the "Big heating companies don't want you to know" ads CZcams clearly doesn't care about the truth.
For reasons I can’t quite articulate this is my favorite video of yours.
Loved the video and how you laid it out. Thanks!
Too many idiots just want to argue about nothing, McCallum is a firearms expert, if any information needs alteration at a future date sure he will do it
Either way, those who use terminology and semantics to allow stupidity are making it worse. To argue the sole difference is a select fire is anathema. When this isn't WW2 anymore and spamming full auto isn't doctrine for infantrymen, the only ones who use it are your MGs and it's only used for suppression - or really specific needs. Everyone needs to understand reality, you are buying a clone of a military service rifle and civilians with weapons designed to shoot over 400 yards is pointless. With performance on par, outside of the parts to give reliability in the field, but with the aftermarket parts you can buy you are able to make it perform equally or better.
To assault means to assault, the weapon being fully automatic or not is pointless. Those who are on the receiving end of a weapon have hardly any care at all about whether it's got a "fun" switch on the side or not.
there is nothing correct about it.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@@SoloRenegadewah wah wah
@@SoloRenegade nothing correct
@@mildly_miffed_man1414 lots of ATF agents in the comments of this video who hate the 2A, such as you.
An excellent video that should be sent to every news agency, media creator, etc!
always LOVE your vids
Before watching this video:
An assault rifle is a select fire, magazine fed, intermediate calibre weapon.
That's it.
Exactly.
Intermediate calibre meaning suitable for 300 yard (275 meter) engagement, I suppose
Do you want a cookie?
Why would we be interested in thoughts that precede the video, especially ones that simply mirror what's in the video?
that you need at least 300 yards of effective range is bullshit@@fourleaf7570
@@PrezVeto Do you disagree with him?
Kudos. I've never been in the dark as to the meaning behind Sturm. 'A storm', referring to weather is distinct from 'to storm', referring to, attack.
In german we do have „A weather storm“ and „An infantry storm“. The verb can be nominalized. However, when i translate „Der Sturm der Infanterie“ i get „The assault of the infantry“
I guess thats why in the end it became an assault rifle and not a storm rifle.
Agreed, I don't see where so much confusion comes from. To me, the correlation is obvious
Simple, well explained, and to the point. Have you considered making more of these videos but for different types of guns? Like DMR's, etc?
I had no idea about all this until making the mistake of using the phrase in an internet debate (also a mistake). With in theory a bunch of people who should know. Confused I just linked to doctrine and got a bunch of abusive replies along with a curious wall chart of guns and the question of which ones are assault rifles. So I told them which ones might be as long as the select fire capability was there, as well as cartridge etc. I then finally went and searched out what in the world was going on and discovered this odd US thing of confusing terms with ‘assault weapon’ and denying the existence of assault rifles. Funny place the US. At least Ian living there enables him to make these videos!
Thank you for putting this video out. I have been saying this for years. I have been trying to get people on both sides of the issue to become better informed and educated on the issues that they are so passionate about. You are doing great work.
Thank you Ian. It's important to educate people on the correct meaning of technical terms. The whole point of language is to communicate ideas effectively, and if that's not happening, we need to take the time to clarify. Understanding people's misconceptions is an important part of that. The general public gets most of their ideas about guns from movies where action heroes can single-handedly mow down small armies without even having to reload.
It is especially important when the powers-that-be are redefining words as basic as “woman”. Remember the video of the “mostly peaceful protests” with burning buildings in the background? That kind of gaslighting is omnipresent today.
Also, Ian points out that there is a category of firearms correctly called “assault rifle”. It just has nothing to do with “assault weapon” as defined by the Clintons, California, etc.
there is nothing correct about it.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@@SoloRenegadesomeone's upset they are going to ban their Assault Rifle 15
@@JamesandVictoria-returns nope, they can't ban it, that's already been ruled on multiple times.
lots of ATF agents in the comments of this video who hate the 2A, such as you.
Keep up the good work Ian!
Totally agree with your train of thought. The best way to deprive them the misuse of a technical term is to use it correctly.
I just wanted to point out that you’re in fact correct that Sturmgewehr translates to Assault Rifle. While the German word Sturm can mean Storm as in weather, in this context it’s the noun to the verb Stürmen. The way to translate Stürmen, as in a non-weather related human activity, would be Attacking or slightly more accurate Assaulting.
As a little nod to your Sig 540, we were trained with the Sturmgewehr 90 (Sig 550).
Storm has the same military meaning in English as sturm does in German. It's just used less frequently.
@@PrezVeto Infact storming a position is not watering it.
Sturm (German) and storm (English) both go back to the same High German root
I'd be shocked if Dutch doesn't have an equivalent
I absolutely adore these question-answer/discussion type videos. I learn a lot from them.
Great video and very informative.
Thanks for covering the facts Ian, that's what you do best! So many people just run on sentiment and won't look at the important things.
I hate it when people confuse the terms assault rifle and assault weapon. I always state the difference by giving the definition of an assault rifle then stating assault weapon is whatever a politician wants to ban.
Exactly. When Democrats call any weapon an assault weapon, it is almost certainly not an actual assault rifle. That is why many people choose to abandon the whole "assault" term completely.
This!
@@AdelaeR who in god's name cares??
_well u know the AR-15 is not an assault rifle right? it can only kill 16 kids per minute_ 🤓
And when you point it out, some people are open to learning the actual difference and others will go "yOuRe aRgUiNg SeMaNtIcS."
To „storm“ a position is attacking a position, der Sturm Angriff is not based on the weather phenomenon „storm“ but a different term for attack. The sturmgewehr is not a „stormRifle“ it’s attackRifle… aka assault rifle
It _is_ a "storm rifle" in the sense you just laid out in your first sentence.
Nobody is confusing it for an X-(Wo)Man’s rifle 😆
….but it’s not heavy wind storm…but you are smart enough to understand that @@PrezVeto
Po-Tay-Toe, Po-Tah-Toe
So... It IS a 'stormrifle'.
Great video and great information. Thank you
Way to stand your ground with no apologies intended or offered. A concise definition that anyone who understands english will understand. Love your channel. Keep it up..........
Storming is just assaulting in another word. To storm a position or to assault a position are the same things.
"Storming" has an element of urgency and commitment to it. If a bunch of infantry fire on an enemy position, that position has definitely been "assaulted", but definitely not "stormed".
@@singami465 If your infantry is on the offensive and just fires at an enemy position, that's just suppression, not assault. You need to at least make an attempt to physically take the position for it to count as assault.
But I agree that storming implies much more intense action
@@singami465lat week my unit trained Sturmabwehrschießen wich roughly translates to „storm defense shooting“ or „anti-assault shooting“
It describes the act of trying to stop the enemy from physically getting into your position/trenchsystem.
Another thing in german stürmen(storming) is mosntly used for infantry while tanks would be angreifen(attacking/assaulting)
A tank assault is a sentence that makes sense while „a tank storm“ seems less so.
Always amazed at how many people say there's no such thing as an assault rifle, yet it very clearly being a term that people use to describe an item consistently lol.
Arguing semantics isn't good at the best of times, but it's way worse when one is wrong at the semantics on top of it lol.
Yes. The term that doesn't mean anything is "assault weapon", as any weapon can be used in an assault.
I’ve noticed that a lot the last few years, I can’t tell if that many people are confusing it with assault weapon, there was a push of some sort to start claiming that, or they are just trolling. I’ve even had them argue about the term Battle Rifle
Too many ppl have seen "assault weapon is not a thing" and like every other thing didn't get why, mixed it with the real term and in their rush to appear smart blurted the wrong thing and then, as is normal with these ppl, rather than admit to a mistake doubled down on it and, because their self esteemed would collapse if they ever admit to being wrong, they have entrenched them self in that position so deep that they can't even concieve anymore that they are wrong. To the point of being so deluded that they take to the comments to 'correct' Ian.
Yeah, "assault weapon" used to be a term used by gun publications as an umbrella term to describe any semi-auto or sporting version of a contemporary military assault rifle in the 70s and 80s. Another term that was used was "assault style rifle." Obviously, this term was derived from "assault rifle" to mean "a gun that looks like an assault rifle, made by the same people who make assault rifle, but you could only shoot one bullet for one pull of the trigger, so it's not an assault rifle."
The thing is, imagine how different history would be if the term "sporter" was used. Colt certainly used "sporter" or "sporting" to describe their semi-auto ARs. If other manufacturers followed suit, then the term "assault weapon" wouldn't have existed.
They're just trying to censor a term that they think might lend any credence to anti-gun politics, but really what it does is prevent gun owners from exercising their 2A rights in an unapologetic fashion
The primary factor is the calibre and in most cases, an assault weapon (rifle, carbine or support weapon) is either an intermediate cartridge (7.92×33 and 7.62×39) or a high-velocity small calibre (think 5.56×45, 5.45×39, 5.8×43mm), and then there are grey areas (i.e. 7.62×33mm aka .30 Carbine) which is too under-powered for an intermediate cartridge (but too powerful to be a pistol) and the 6.5×50mm Arisaka which is too powerful to be an intermediate round and falls in the lower end of the full power rifle.
The second requirement is a full automatic and semi-automatic fire option and final requirement a a high capacity magazine (20-30 rounds or more). Anything lacking the last three is an 'assault weapon' such as semi-automatic fire restriction or magazine size restrictions etc. Otherwise, assault weapons classification(rifle, carbine or support weapon) is primarily determined by the rifle's barrel length and portability: bullpup rifles being sub-category that combine carbine lengths with rifle barrel lengths.
Well made points Ethan. Keep up the great work
I've seen comments saying that "assault rifle" isn't a real weapon class before, and I always figured it had something to do with some kind of PTSD from gun control laws (understandably so) but I never knew for sure. Also I knew about the "select-fire" and "intermediate cartridge" requirements, but I didn't know that detachable box magazines are required for a gun to be considered an assault rifle as well. Great, informative video as usual, Ian!
The main thing box magazines disqualify from the definition are Belt-fed machine guns.
Although I want to say someone somewhere probably has made a gun select fire and in an intermediate cartridge that just has an internal magazine.
It isn't. It was just wordplay by the Germans to make it scary. The name just stuck afterwards, as after all assaulting a position with an automatic weapon is a lot better than a semi auto one. But whether you have this or not, you are still assaulting a position with a rifle.
But of course, this term has now been used and abused by everyone to excuse them being allowed to have something they would normally need to join the army for.
@@MT-lv3ls its more that the stg 44 was a rifle built for assaulting. you can assault a position with a semi auto rifle, but its like using a wrench as a hammer.
"Assault Rifle" IS a recognized class. "Assault WEAPON" is NOT. Or any other kind of "assault [insert item here]".
@sauliluolajan-mikkola620 Yes, but Sturm also means storm, so "Storm Rifle" and "Assault Rifle" share the same wording. The Volkssturmgewehr has been called both the People's Assault Rifle and the People's Storm Rifle. With how they chose the word "blitzkrieg" to mean lighting war, I personally think storm was the idea here too. - But this is more wordplay and subjective discussions itself.
Outdating means nothing when the wording is taken literally, Virginia certainly did a great job in making something into the biggest mess it could be, reading up on that is also quite interesting. However, all the loopholes created for decades and a part of the country still holding onto the notion of being armed to prepare to overthrow what they see as tyrannical - has also turned it into a fiasco.
I think this was a very eloquent and intelligent way to explain the differences in terminology and that these terms have been used by the US government in ways that aren't necessarily in line with accepted technical definitions without going into any sort of politicking or theorizing. Well done, Sir - that's a razor's edge to walk and you handled a potentially fraught subject with your usual intellectual aplomb.
there is nothing correct about it.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@@SoloRenegade using the examples you've given, none of those firearms meet the criteria for an "assault rifle" as Ian defined it though. The 10/22 yes can be made to operate as a select fire weapon although that is not a stock option from Ruger. It's also - as directly noted my the name - nominally chambered in .22Lr, which I really do not think is considered an "intermediate cartridge". Also, the 10/22 was designed to be used as a sporting arm for small game and as an affordable, reliable, all-around farm/truck/camp etc gun. It was not designed for military use. And yes, I know. Some states DO include the 10/22 under State level bans. I know ALL about it because I live in "The Garden and What Second Amendment? Where? No Such Thing State", New Jersey. You wanna hear people sound off about bad definitions of an "assault weapon", come to any public shooting range here and bring up the 10/22 but make sure you have a while, because you will hear plenty of justified aggravation. Likewise, however, a select-fire AR-10 in .338 Federal (not sure if any manufacturers do offer it in select in that caliber as it was designed for big game, but it's hard to keep track of all the variants) still is not an assault rifle as both the .338 Fed and the .308 that it's derived from are full -size, not intermediate, cartridges. It should also be noted that even though that even the original AR-10 design, in 7.62x51 NATO, is also not an assault rifle because of that full power cartridge. Same with the M1 (which is semi auto only except for a few full auto prototypes and test rifles) and M1A; like the M-24, FAL and the G3, because of them being nominally designed for the 7.62x51, they're too powerful to be considered assault rifles. But there IS a separate designation for full-size cartridge semi-only or select fire self loading military rifles - that and that would be Battle Rifle. Again, some of the differences are so, as Ian said, fuzzy - like an AK in 7.62x39 is an assault rifle because that shorter case length considerably affects the terminal ballistics of the round vs 7.62x51 or even better 7.62x54R. Anyhow, yes. Terminology is confusing, but my point is that Ian did a good job of making a case for a reasonably straightforward definition of "assault rifle", and got into the topic of various aspects of that definition are misunderstood or incorrectly used by government without getting into a political tirade. That's what I was really impressed with. He even admitted that there are aspects of his definition that are more nebulous - again, what's the line between intermediate and full sized? Should .243 Winchester be considered full or intermediate? I'll argue that .270 should be called full power and .223 should be intermediate because I've literally shot them within a few minutes of each other and even though the one round is not substantially bigger, that extra dose of powder makes a big difference. There's so much semantics that goes into this stuff it's no wonder the politicians who don't understand it remotely say goofy stuff like "fully semiautomatic" and "30 magazine caliber clip" or whatever else. And again, believe me, I hear ya about the stupid operating definitions that have been slapped on different firearms - don't forget, I live in New Jersey, where gun rights go to die. I have a buddy who inherited an AR-15 from his grandfather. Semi only. No optics mounts, no tactical grips, no bayonet lugs, only 10rd magazines, everything totally in compliance with NJ's ridiculous AR-15 regulations, except the one thing that keeps it locked in the safe, never to see a range until the "fixes" it. It has an adjustable stock. Not even an M4 style stock. Just an aftermarket adjustable sporter stock because apparently in my state, wanting to be, y'know, comfortable shooting your legally owned firearm is a crime against humanity. So until he gets some variety of monolithic stock on there, he literally cannot shoot his otherwise completely legal firearm. Then again, this is also the state where you need to apply for a Firearms Purchaser ID with your local police department to buy a dang BB gun... Anyway....
@@johnswoboda9809 "using the examples you've given, none of those firearms meet the criteria for an "assault rifle" as Ian defined it though."
Proving my whole point.
"The 10/22 yes can be made to operate as a select fire weapon although that is not a stock option from Ruger. "
nor does armalite sell select fire AR15, yet tons of select fire AR15 exist today none the less. Who manufactured it is not part of the definition. Do try to keep up.
" Also, the 10/22 was designed to be used as a sporting arm for small game and as an affordable, reliable, all-around farm/truck/camp etc gun. It was not designed for military use. "
use intent is ALSO Not part of the definition. INTENT doesn't apply, and you damned well know that. stop making up lame excuses. you're like a wok feminist, trying to justify her actions.
"Some states DO include the 10/22 under State level bans."
further proving me right, that the "definition" is arbitrary and not valid.
"It should also be noted that even though that even the original AR-10 design, in 7.62x51 NATO, is also not an assault rifle because of that full power cartridge. "
.308 is an intermediate cartridge. If you don't beleive me compare its size and effective range to teh .30-06, .338, .50, .416, .300, 7mm, and more. The fact you can't even identify an intermediate cartridge further proves the definition is ARBITRAY and invalid.
The rest of your comment just further validates that I am right. The defintion is invalid, subjective, arbitrary, and nobody can agree what is what, and we can also point to weapons that are not assault rifles yet have all teh definition features, and rifles that are LITERALLY assault rifles, yet aren't considered assault rifles. And if lethality is what they are seeking to control, then an assault rifle limitaion that doesn't apply to large caliber rifles is BS nonsense and proves the defintion is invalid and has nothing to do with safety or anything else.
@@johnswoboda9809the guy you’re responding to is going to assume your beliefs like a Portland college student right outta a Marxism class. “If you don’t agree with me in the slightest you’re a nazi/fascist!!”
@@SoloRenegade
It's as clear as any category of weapons and it's one of the best established categories of weapons in the world.
If an assault rifle isn't a thing than neither is a "sword" or "knife".
Keep up the fight and thank you for what you do!
Back in my army days, when I first heard the term "assault rifle" defined, a short length (40-inches?) was also used. Otherwise, everything else you used in your definition is absolutely correct. Thanks for the video.
A thing I learned is that legal definitions are NOT common language definitions and are NOT technical definitions.
There are several definitions and we can use them liberally in the various contexts in which they are appropriate, most importantly without any obsession about the fact that there are other definitions, possibly applicable to other contexts.
Just as examples from the Italian law (which might not be the best example of a sensible law systems, I give You that):
- the definition of scrap for the fiscal law is inconsistent with the definition of scrap for the waste management law;
- a physically mobile liquid fuel dispenser is, according to the law, mobile if You are a farmer, but it is a building if You are a manufacturer;
- a subcontractor is a subcontractor unless it is also a farmer (we like farmers) who works in the mountains (...and mountains), then it isn't irrespective to who commissions its job;
- pluvial water is rain water in common Italian and according to the regulation on water disposal in most of Italy, but not in Lombardy, where pluvial water is the one that comes out of a pluvial pipe, i.e., of a roof draining pipe (which we call a pluvial pipe because it's for pluvial water, at least in common Italian...).
So, don't be obsessed with legal definitions, as they are positively established to the sole aim of defining scopes of regulations, and therefore they are relevant only when used for those regulations.
"Legal definitions... Positively established to the sole aim of defining scopes of regulations, and therefore they are relevant only when used for regulations."
Great insights. Speaking as someone who works at the intersection of law and public education, and has to deal with legal definitions every day.
Issue is that when those legal definitions move into daily discourse and start to be used outside of the scope of that initial regulation, like with the term "assault weapons," there's a lot of confusion.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu He said ”assault rifles”, you start REEEEEEE'ing over how laws define "assault weapon". The point of this video is about the difference between those terms.
May I suggest you learn to read before you start insulting others?
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu ...yes, that sort of response is exactly what I meant by REEEEEEE'ing, no actual arguments, just insults and semantics. Bonus points for projection and throwaway account too, should I call bingo?
I don't pay much attention to the law regardless. I just do what I want according to my God-given morality and I'll deal with the consequences knowing I was fully in the right. When men live like this, they are truly free. And when enough men live like this, the law changes.
@@Abcdefg-tf7cu "You do not have any arguments. You just insult people." Your lack of self awareness is amazing I actually can't believe you're this dumb, you must be trolling. So if you're going to ignore everything everyone else says I'm not gonna keep feeding you, crawl back under your bridge.
Or keep REEEEEEE'ing, I don't care.
The Finnish Rk-62 & Rk-95 are literally shorthands for "rynnäkkökivääri" meaning assault rifle. It is a real term but understandably causes some confusion in the US. Thank you for spreading awareness about this issue.
I think it’s the umlauts that confuse us.
You are learned and incredibly articulate. You also shoot like a champion.
Great semantic discussion. Thank you.
Thank you for discussing the actual origin of the term "assault rifle".
origin, yes, but the defintion he uses is BS. there is nothing correct about it.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@SoloRenegade - You're a brave man to contradict Ian in this manner.
Standby for incoming if I were you!
@@cmck472 oh, the incoming has been coming for days. Not one of them has been able to prove me wrong though.
no one is right all of the time, including Ian.
@@SoloRenegade Fair enough! Just so long as you know what you’re in for 🤣
FWIW, my personal view is that there are two different issues at play. One is gun regulation, which I personally think is laudable, and the other is technical nomenclature.
I wouldn’t have the technical knowledge to contradict Ian on any issue relating to firearms.
However, I think that trying to define a class of firearm to restrict ownership or availability IS a good idea. Even if the attempt by the Founding Fathers to make gun ownership tied to State Militia use did fail thanks to a poor decision by SOCTUS. The dissent on Scalia’s opinion makes interesting reading.
@@cmck472 yes, I knew what I was stirring up. but if people want to defeat the ATF, NFA, etc. and truly understand firearms and defend the 2A, then they need to understand the realities and facts.
The word "Sturm" on its own would almost always be translated as storm, but in the context of Sturmgewehr it's used as in "stürmen" which means assualt/assaulting. Everybody telling you its stands for storm rifle doesn't know anything about the german language
Guess what English word has a second meaning of "assault" (in the military sense), exactly parallel to the German 'sturm'.
guess what a synonym of assault is? Storm, lmao. It means stormrifle.
Thankyou Ian. Very much in agreement. Good to be on the same side/ knowledgeable..
Thanks Ian for a concise, calm, and clear explainer.
I also liked how you touched on the issue of words and their definitions and how they sometimes are used for other purposes like politics.
I'd like to have side-by-side photos of two M1-carbines, one with the original wooden stock, as used for small game hunting, and one with the most tacti-cool synthetic stock and accessories hanging off the rails. Then ask an average person which was the assault weapon.
Edit: This comparison would *not* include an M2, that's the point. A semi-auto is a semi-auto, not matter what's hanging off it.
Well, that would depend on whether or not one was an M2.
Steven Crowder already did a video like this with multiple rifles laid out on a table, if I remember correctly.
This won't work anymore. People will try to ban both, look at the latest bans in IL/WA/Canada.
M2 would only matter if he said assault rifle (which it is). Assault weapon is defined by legislation and an m2 being fully automatic is unrelated to the language most common used (ie ‘94 AWB)
@@esrvdb88 I left the M2 out of it, I'm just trying to make a point about how uninformed people make bad judgements simply on appearances. To them a semi-automatic rifle is scary if it looks scary.
You forgot to mention the single most dangerous feature of, and most significant difference between any "assault whatever" and every other firearm:
the color.
mine has that faux wooden look
@@mikepj67 Good. That makes it absolutely harmless. You couldn't assault anything with it, except some people's eyes.
So is there such a thing as assault people then??? Yeah i don;'t think these people who think that really thought that one through.... or they did and well the implications for that are... disturbing.
But wouldnt calling it a "Black rifle" or indicating that since the gun is black it makes it dagerous not make you a racist?? (This is of course a joke - to any fool that would be butthurt by words sincethe tone of speach and sarcasm is impssible to convey in writting )
Come to think of it, haven't heard the tale of the evil black rifle in a while since all the woke stuff got flushed into society.
Maybe they tried calling them african american rifles, or rifles of color, and that was finally stupid enough, even for them, to wake up and smell the bullshit.
Thank you, Ian, for introducing some clarity to the discussion surrounding this term. Too many people are using incorrect definitions either inadvertently or on purpose to further muddy the waters and confuse the issue.
there is nothing correct about it.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
Great video, Ian...👍
"It is whatever I say it is." -The Gubmint
Unconstitutionally underrated comment.
The ATF has decided that your comment is, in fact, an unregistered suppressor and you are in violation of the law. Unless you want to pay them, that is.
"I don't remember _asking you,_ G-man." --Me
George Orwell would agree with this statement.
People are getting the term assault rifle mixed up with assault weapon.
Yeah, and it annoys me greatly.
And they get militant about it
And the worst offenders are anti gunners, as they see them as the same thing and often use both terms interchangeably.
One being a precise technical term and the other being an open-ended political term. Language can be used to honestly communicate and be used to deceive by contortion.
@@wiryone1 Political term? Assault Weapon was a commonly used term in the "Gun" community not so long ago. Gun Digest used to produce books with that title.
*Assault* *Rifle* - A select-fire and/or fully automatic rifle/carbine fed from a detachable magazine, firing intermediate rifle cartridges.
Nicely composed video shot.
The first group to apply the "Assault rifle" label to semi auto rifles wasn't politicians, it was advertisers trying to sell "military style" (whatever that means) rifles to the public. Check your old gun digests if you want.
This is true - Gun Digest even had a series called the "Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" which lumped them all in together, further confusing the terms. Not to mention that there are companies which used the terminology (Intratec, for example, routinely advertised the TEC-9 as an "assault pistol" in the 1980s).
@@BunyipDude old gun digest are the best rainy day reads on earth though, anything from the 50s/60s/70s
Another wrinkle is that almost every military that adopted assault rifles included in their manuals and training that using full auto on assault rifles should be done rarely. The StG44 manual discouraged the use of full auto. Modern soldiers are also taught to fire their M4s in semi-auto almost exclusively.
@@DoomGoober This is true. Alas, many on “our side” do not like to admit it.
@@BunyipDudeit might not be assault rifle anymore, but it is very much a military firepower weapon. Hence I find the "noo, its harmless civilian rifle, see we removed full auto, it isn't assault rifle" talking ingenuine. Give me a break, that is still a military rifle. Just because it doesn't have the suppressive spray/ trench sweep mode, doesn't make it less lethal at longer combat ranges.
To the point that semi-auto carbine versions are a *military thing* sure limited thing, not issued may to front assault troops. However some militaries do issue their reat guards, military police, gendarmerie with semi carbine version of main issue assault rifle. Usually simple a normal rifle with small part swap in trigger mechanism to disable the full auto aka permanently activate the disconnector.
Its incredible you have to explain this.... Thanks Ian hope the nonsense ends here
It won't. Gun spergs are always up in arms, pun intended, about people using "assualt rifle" in ANY context, even the correct one.
It's not incredible because gun magazines in the 70s and 80s called semi-autos Assault Weapons.
@@rsilvers129 It's been, respectively, 50 and 40 years since then. While magazines at the time may have used that term for lack of a better one, that doesn't make mean that they were accurate. Salesmen don't have what you'd call a sterling reputation for honesty or even expertise in what they're selling.
It is endlessly amusing to me whenever I see a supposed firearms enthusiast confidently proclaim that 'assault rifle' is a meaningless term. There's no limit to human stupidity.
probably becasue there is nothing correct about it. He's wrong.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
You are 100% correct in both usage and in reasons to use the term assault rifle when appropriate.
I really appreciate you standing up for phrasing, nomenclature and verbiage. Especially in regards to firearms. Please keep fighting the good fight
*internet people try and correct Ian's terminology* ...hooo boy here we go.
Thank you for clarifying the confusion surrounding this term.
there is nothing clarified. he's still wrong.
in reality the term "assault rifle" as he defined it is BS and false, arbitrary. As it includes things that are not "assault rifles" (10/22, M1 carbine, etc.), and also dis-includes things that really ARE "assault rifles" (AR10 select chambered in .338, M1/M1A, etc.).
@@SoloRenegadebros mad that the government wants to take his Assault Rifle 15
Excellent, thanks for clarification on the term! OCD note (sorry), please dust bookshelf trim next to Globe.
Thank you Ian,
As adults we should take a good breath and consider how much we really understand/know about subjects we are compelled to talk about.
We should always seek to have an educated, articulate discussion or debate, once emotions are introduced we have an argument and no further progress is made.
All of us are beat with thousand petty things each day, so we must be patient and educated for rational thought and common sense to survive. I very much enjoy learning things and Ian is a great source.
I think clarification videos like this are important. People who are casual with their gun knowledge (myself for example) tend to forget just WHY certain guns are LMGs, HMGs, SMGs, Assault rifles, Battle rifles, etc. etc.
I would add there is also such real thing as semi-auto military carbine/combat carbine aka assault rifle with neutered semi-auto only trigger pack. Mostly heard those in regards to paramilitaries or maybe specific rear guard duties. People who aren't real on the front line expected to need volume of fire and real whose job says the exact opposite. Supposed to be conservative and curtailed in fire use. Paramilitary law enforcement, guards etc. Where "no you havet to account each shot fired, what was the specific thing you shot at, why, why 3 shots, why not just 1. Oh first two missed okay I guess that is acceptable."
This just regarding the "this scary military rifle turned to civilian one by removing ratatata switch". Well in many jurisdictions it didnt. Quick swap box magizine and self loading nature alone makes it restricted category item for many countries and often considered still military weapon. Just a military semi-auto carbine, instead of assault rifle. Since that semi-auto carbine is pretty much as deadly as the full auto one in even little bit longer range. On submachine gun room/trench sweeping, yeah the full auto banger sweeps.
However 150m-300m combat range. That full auto banger is likely anyway shot as rapid repetition single shot. Since unless you are some GSG9/GIGN/Delta force shot, you aint doing much good with the 3burst follow up. The first shot goes where is aimed, rest is suppressive spray at such ranges.
Since ahemm bump stocks have shown, that thing loads and locks as fast as you pull trigger. Allowing still very great volume of fire. Guestion is always more "how fast can you ajm", "how long can you sustain" and how fast you reload. Which is why in many jurisdictions removable box magazines bump the restriction category majorly. Since authorities know "we allow detachable feed, it doesn't matter what we say the capacity is supposed to be". All it takes is hack saw and welder and they have as big magazine as they want. Anyway they can have hundreds of rounds preloaded and swaps are seconds a piece.
Good video. You stayed very concise and factual. It makes me laugh/cry when people who claim to be gun experts, try and say, "Assault Rifles don't exist" or think they are the same as Assault Weapons.
When I was in HS we visited WestPoint and saw one of their displays that defined Assault Rifle, basically as I recall how you defined it.
According to Colorado's Civilian Disarmament Branch of Government "Legislators" Assault Weapons are just about anything that has a detachable magazine. It could be a rifle or a pistol or a shotgun, as long as it has a magazine and one other thing like a pistol grip, threaded barrel or muzzle device of any kind.
Colorado resident here! Our state currently has a bill that just got past the house that is trying to ban "assault weapons" and in the bill it mentions "barrel shrouds" being indicative of an assault weapon, along with pistol grips, & detachable magazines. Essentially, they want to ban "scary guns" They got the magazine thing right technically, but this is just another example of terrible laws being pushed by people that just want to please the side they ran for. Tons of people are saying it wont pass, but it is still getting somewhere..
I think it is also important that we continue to do our best to spread the actual definition of assault rifles to people.
They are being lied to and its working only because they lack understanding
Not really. If you explain to someone who wants AR15 type rifles banned for civilian use that they aren't technically assault rifles because they don't have select fire capability it's not like they will change their mind on the subject.