What is an assault rifle?

I'm going to hit this one again, because it bears touching back on given that Congress is going be to looking at a set of new gun laws in the following month. The situation is probably one of the most polarized, if not MOST polarized in American politics, and emotions are still running high. While Dianne Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban is on life support, New York City mayor and billionaire Micheal Bloomburg and his lobby group Mayors Against Illegal Guns continues to push for an "assault weapon" ban and Bloomburg himself is pouring his own personal fortune into it.

You can't be emotional and rational at the same time.

Before you address an issue, you need to understand the terminology and all the technical details in the issue itself and in any satellite issues. Here the main issue is gun violence while the satellite issues are the types of guns.

Ever since Sandy Hook, American politicians can't seem to open their mouth and not have "assault weapon" come out of it at some point. But also none have seemed to define what an "assault weapon" is. Why is that? It's because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", it's a hollow, politically created term, with no definition.

But there is such thing as an assault rifle. The U.S. military defines an assault rifle as:

"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."

But aren't assault rifles and "assault weapons" the same thing? No, and here is why. First I'll start with a short explanation of the assault rifles history. "Assault rifle" is derived from the German "Sturmgewehr", the direct translation is "storm rifle". It was a term Hitler coined for the StG-44, the rifle considered the first true assault rifle.

During WWII the Germans were looking for a gun with the rapid fire and mobility of a sub-machine gun (a machine gun that fires smaller pistol ammo) with the power of a rifle. The Germans were finding that their 9mm sub-machine guns like the MP-40 lacked the range to "storm" or "assault" a dug in enemy. While at the same time while their bolt-action Mauser K98 and semi-auto (one shot, per pull of the trigger) Gewehr 43 had the range but lacked the rate of fire for the task.

The idea here is that with rapid fire and long range, infantry can advance on dug in defensive positions, using the rapid fire ability to keep the defender's "heads down" as they advanced on or stormed/assaulted the enemy positions and took the positions. Hence "assault" rifle, a rifle used to "assault" or "storm" enemy defensive positions.

The key characteristic of the assault rifle is this "select-fire". Basically the rifle has multiple modes, it can go "full-automatic" IE machine gun, and/or "burst-fire" where it shoots two or three rounds per trigger pull, and semi-auto where it only fires one round per pull. In contrast rifles like the AR-15, while they might LOOK like the M-16/M-4 in military service, they lack that key feature of full-automatic/burst-fire. If we go back to the purpose of the assault rifle, to storm enemy positions, they lack this key feature, and thus are unsuited to "assaulting" or "storming" these dug in positions. Hence the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

Another characteristic of the assault rifle is that it fires an "intermediate" powered cartridge. Basically if the bigger .30-06 that hunting rifle and rifles like the classic M-1 Garand fire, are full powered rounds, an intermediate powered cartridge like the .223 are medium powered. This was an idea the Germans came upon in an attempt to reduce recoil in full-automatic fire.

Now that we are clear on what an assault rifle is, we move on to "assault weapon." What makes an "assault weapon" different from a non-assault weapon? Mechanically, as in the working parts and functioning, nothing.

Lets do a compare and contrast with a few.

This is the M-1A, it is a civilian semi-auto version of the military's M-14 family. The M-14 family is an evolution of the classic M-1 Garand of WWII. Classic piece of Americana. The M-1A is pretty conventional, in California where there is an "assault weapon" ban, this rifle is perfectly legal. Functionally it is semi-automatic only and incapable of the full-auto fire the M-14 is capable of. It is gas-operated meaning it uses some of the gas produced from the gunpowder's ignition to cycle the action and load the next round automatically.

This here is the M-1A SOCOM II version of the M-1A. Like the M-1A it semi-auto only and uses largely the same gas system as the one above, and legal in California. Same rifle, just a little more "tactical" with accessory rails for optics, flashlights or what ever else makes you happy. 

Finally this is the same M-1A with an "EBR" (Enhanced Battle-Rifle) style stock that mimics the M-14EBR/Mk.14EBR stock that the military uses on their updated M-14s. Like the two above it is semi-automatic only, using the same gas system. It might look radically different  but mechanically, and functionally these three rifles are largely identical. They even fire the same caliber.

But this third rifle is an illegal "assault weapon" in California. Why, when mechanically and functionally it is the same as the other two which ARE legal? Yes it has accessory rails but so does the M-1A SOCOM II set up. Because with the EBR stock the the M-1A has a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine. But is that what determines lethality? Cosmetics?

Lets take a look at another rifle.

This is the Ruger Mini-14, looks a bit like the M-1A doesn't it? Should look somewhat familiar if you're a fan of The A-Team. It is a semi-auto only rifle derived from the M-14 and something of a cousin or a little brother to the M-1A above. While the M-1A is chambered for the larger 7.62NATO (a full-powered round like the ones mentioned earlier), the Mini-14 uses the smaller .223/5.56NATO. The Mini-14 in it's standard configuration is legal in California. Looks pretty convention doesn't it.

Let's compare the AR-15 to it. This is the AR-15 in one of it's MANY configurations. Thanks to politicians it is the quintessential "assault weapon" and today even surpassing the AK-47 in infamy.

Like the Mini-14 above, the AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire. It fires the same medium powered round as the Mini-14. Mechanically they are different in that they use different gas-systems. But functionally they are the same, one pull of the trigger will only get you one shot. However like the M-1A with the EBR stock, in it's factory configuration the AR-15 is illegal in California.

The AR-15 is interesting in it's design. The rifle is actually really two main parts (an upper reciver and a lower reciver) that can be swapped out and mix and matched. Now keeping in mind that the AR-15 in it's standard configuration, like above, is an illegal "assault weapon" in Ca, lets take a look at this rifle.

Remember what I said about mixing and matching parts? Well this rifle has an Ares SCR lower receiver, with an AR-15 upper receiver. This rifle is legal in California. The rifle's upper half, with the firing mechanism is an AR-15, the lower half is functionally the same as the lower half on an AR-15. The main difference is the buffer tube that is inside an AR-15's stock is replaced with a design from an semi-automatic shotgun and the bolt carrier group (the part that grabs the bullet and detonates the primer to make the gun shoot) has been modified to accommodate the changes. The rifle is still gas operated, it's still semi-automatic only, and yet it's the one that's legal under an "assault weapon" ban. I'm sure you can tell why, but can you tell me how that makes sense?

Finally this is the Russian Saiga Rifle. The Saiga Rifle is to the AK-47 family what the M-1A is to the M-14 family.

Just like with the M-1A, the Russian Saiga uses the same operating principals as it's parent rifle. But like the M-1A, the Saiga is limited to semi-automatic only. But again, guess which one of those set-ups in the picture is legal in an "assault weapon" ban state, and which on isn't, despite being "the same under the hood".

All of these rifles are functionally identical, only one shot per trigger pull. All lack the ability for full-automatic, hence they are unsuited for "storming" an entrenched position, because they lack the rate of fire needed to "keep and enemy's head down". Remember what I said earlier about the German's not being satisfied with their semi-automatic Gewehr 43? About how it didn't fire fast enough to storm a dug in position? Well, that's the same thing with these semi-automatic rifles. Therefore they are certainly not assault rifles, despite looking like them. Does it make sense that these rifles are largely functionally identical, but several are illegal "assault weapons"?

As an aside, semi-automatic technology has been around for over 100 years. The classic M-1911, the handgun seen carried by U.S. soldiers in just about EVERY WWII media, is named that because it was adopted by the military in 1911 AD. The Mauser C-96, the pistol that the prop for Han Solo's blaster pistol was made from, goes back even further to 1899. The direct gas-impingement system used in the AR-15 first showed up in the experimental Rossignol ENT developed by the French in 1901. Yes operating principal of the AR-15 is literally 116 years old. The technology has been around for over 100 years, yet only in the mid to late '90s did we see a peak in violent crime. So what changed between that other 80 or so years and the '90s? It certainly wasn't the gun that had changed...

But I digress.

Again is that what determines lethality? Appearance? If it looks scarier, does it make it more dangerous? Just because I put on a cop's uniform doesn't make me a cop. Politicians will refer to these as "weapons of war" but by and large these rifles are unsuited for modern warfare. Mechanically, they are different from their military counterparts, their military counterparts have the mechanical parts to allow full-automatic or burst-fire capabilities. You will likely NOT find an AR-15 in any nation's (that isn't some two-bit, tin pot, 3rd world dictatorship) armories. You will find M-16s, M-4s and possibly some variant of the AR-10 in a marksman or sniper role, but you're not likely to find an AR-15. It would be comparing me in a cop uniform to an actual cop. I just look like one, while the actual one was trained to be a cop.

To further clarify things, here are a few videos that demonstrate the difference.

Officer Leroy Pyle of the San Jose PD (retired) does an excellent job here of demonstrating how a rifle can look different, but have identical working parts. The video is quite a bit old, but no less valid today.

Here we got Youtuber the "Bigshooterist" he's a bit less... well... "diplomatic", than Officer Pyle, but he makes very valid points, on how semi-automatic firearms are not the same as the military's assault rifles.

Here's one more from Bigshooterist, he goes to make the same point as Officer Pyle, when he took apart the Mini-14. Here Bigshooterist does the same thing, but goes a little more in-depth into the function and appearance. If you're a fan of The A-Team, you'll probably recognize reconfigured Mini-14 at the end.

To put it bluntly there's a lot of bullshit, and that's what it is, all this noise that people like Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein, or celebrities like Amy Schumer or Stephen King, make over guns is pure undiluted bullshit. Politicians don't know what they're talking about, people in the media don't know what they're talking about, and most actors don't know what they're talking about. It's like a big hype machine for something, but no one really knows what that something is, despite everyone talking about it. Hope this cuts though all that bullshit, cuts though all the emotions and brings out the facts of the matter.