General question on terminology

[Aguila Blanca]

Over on an authors' forum where I hang out, I corrected a youngster whose entire reference library is computer games, which he seems to think constitute an authoritative source for what happens in the real world. The recent discussion was about "assault rifles," which he proclaimed are ("as everyone knows") the most powerful weapons in the world.

I explained the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle, and gave some examples of some common rifle rounds that are more powerful than 5.56x45. And immediately a guy from UK chimed in and took me to task, claiming that it is now common in the US military as well as the UK military for soldiers to refer to the M16 and the M4 as "battle rifles."

Is this true?

Thanks.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

Over on an authors' forum where I hang out, I corrected a youngster whose entire reference library is computer games, which he seems to think constitute an authoritative source for what happens in the real world. The recent discussion was about "assault rifles," which he proclaimed are ("as everyone knows") the most powerful weapons in the world.

I explained the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle, and gave some examples of some common rifle rounds that are more powerful than 5.56x45. And immediately a guy from UK chimed in and took me to task, claiming that it is now common in the US military as well as the UK military for soldiers to refer to the M16 and the M4 as "battle rifles."

Is this true?

Thanks.

I'm sure that you and I would agree that a battle rifle fires a real rifle cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge. Even at that we would acknowledge that a 7.62x51 or .303 are hardly the most powerful weapons in the world.

I know quite a few kids recently in service, enlisted and officers, and I've never heard them refer to their ARs as battle rifles or assault rifles. References seem to be to SAWs or 240s, 50s, rifles and often just "gun". One lad who worked for me a few years ago bought a CMP Garand in nice condition shortly after his first few paychecks. He treasures it and talks about it, but never once as a "battle rifle".

My second hand experience can't be dispositive, but taking you to task on this isn't well reasoned. If assault rifle and battle rifle are terms of distinction, what do those soldiers call an actual battle rifle? I can imagine a soldier describing things incorrectly, inexactly or otherwise mangling the language, like calling a medic "doc", but that doesn't make it wrong to note that a medic isn't an MD. I can also imagine a lad referring to his battle rifle, battle knife, battle boots or battle iPhone, but none of that would set the meaning for the rest of us who might roll our eyes at someone discussing his "battle comb".

I don't see why someone just being a soldier would make him a pertinent authority on the issue. Maybe this fellow from the UK only knows the silly ones.

[Aguila Blanca]

The chap from the UK is a moderator on a different authors' forum. He tends to be a bit "badge heavy," and he is in fact the reason I no longer participate on that other forum. I wasn't happy when he showed up on this one, but at least he isn't a moderator.

[jetinteriorguy]

Dealing with ignorant fools is fast becoming a normal part of our daily lives.

[rickyrick]

Enthusiasts usually consider Assault Rifles as firing an intermediate cartridge and has select fire capability.
Battle rifles as firing a full sized rifle cartridges.

We never used such terms in the army. The commonly issued weapon at a given time was called the basic infantry weapon, however that was rare. We just said m16, m4, m14 etc. I’m

[9x19]

I've been out of the game a long time (retired in '94), but I frequently listen to podcasts with GWOT veterans, and none of them, when talking about any of their engagements with hostiles, called their weapon a "Battle Rifle". They either call it an 'M4' or just a rifle.

Msgt Earl Plumlee did identify his rifle as a 'SCAR Heavy' (7.62x51) in the engagement he was recognized for, and later awarded the CMOH.

Some will occasionally refer to their complete kit as 'Battle Rattle'

[Nathan]

I’m confused. I thought assault rifle was a purely political term as opposed to battle rifle which was a grouping term used by people in conversation, authors and the like to show rifles carried into battle where the gun and ammo are carried by a single person.

[Wag]

This is the first time I've ever heard the term "battle rifle" in a gun forum. No telling how that got started other than the story you tell.

I have a tendency to take language very literally as in, words have specific meanings. I live by the Thesaurus but it's full of nuance, etc.

That said, if you're in a battle and you have a rifle, I suppose it's a "battle rifle." If you point a rifle at someone and threaten them with it, an assault, then I suppose that makes it an "assault rifle," and so on and so forth.

People like to be unique, I suppose, and moderators have a tendency to like to be the all-knowing fount of knowledge that other look up to. And they get on little power trips as a result.

--Wag--

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I’m confused. I thought assault rifle was a purely political term as opposed to battle rifle which was a grouping term used by people in conversation, authors and the like to show rifles carried into battle where the gun and ammo are carried by a single person.

I think you are mis-remembering "assault weapon", a term used to confuse casual observers into thinking a semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle.

"Battle rifle" is a retronym, a term applied not at the time the items were widely used, but to distinguish them from the "assault rifle" format that now dominates as service rifles issued by almost every country.

[lunger]

I think we take terminology and grammar too seriously on forums. Does it really matter ?

Everybody would be happier if we loaded some " bullets in some clips of those high capacity assault weapons" and carried on.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by lunger

I think we take terminology and grammar too seriously on forums.

Yes, grammar and clarity matter. Your position and question are clear because you used sound grammar and words with meanings accepted by us both; that made your post effective. I don't come to your conclusion, but I respect your deliberation and clear communication.

People who don't understand the meaning of the words they use to some degree don't understand what they say and write, and may become frustrated that their unexpressed meaning isn't being accepted.

On the other hand, people who disagree with one another clearly and precisely have more in common than two people who don't like to examine their thoughts and don't comprehend what they think and say.

[Pahoo]

These terms have an "evolutionary" process, all their own and controlled by those who control the media. We no longer use' AR's, assault or even weapons of war. "One" of the most recently used terms, is semi-automatic weapons. If you listen to the news, you will understand what I mean. All of these terms, confuse the uninformed. ........

I think they should go back to using the term; "Weapons of War"; which would even incluse your pocket knife. .....

"Never try to teach a pig, how to sing; it's a waste of your time and annoys the pig"

God bless and:
Be safe !!!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Pahoo

"One" of the most recently used terms, is semi-automatic weapons.

Just so long as it is not a fully semi-automatic weapon with a shoulder thing that goes up, in 9mm (the most powerful cartridge) and capable of blowing out someone's lungs. Those are death machines with no place on our streets.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I’m confused. I thought assault rifle was a purely political term as opposed to battle rifle which was a grouping term used by people in conversation, authors and the like to show rifles carried into battle where the gun and ammo are carried by a single person.

Rickyrick and Zukiphile have already answered your question. "Assault rifle" is a legitimate term for a rifle firing an "intermediate" [power] cartridge and having a selector to allow either semi-auto or full auto firing. A battle rifle fires a full-power cartidge.

"Assault weapon" is the made-up term that anti-gunners devised so they could trick the populace into thinking that AR-15s are military-grade (another made-up term) firearms. While there is a standard, accepted definition for "assault rifle," there is no standard definition for "assault weapon." If you look at the assault weapon ban laws of the several states that have such laws, the definitions are not the same for all the states, and they are subject to change.

For example, I bought an AR-15 in 2000 or 2001, during the federal AWB. So it was a "post-ban" configuration, with no flash hider, no bayonet lug, and a fixed, A2-style stock. Legally, it was just a semi-automatic rifle.

The federal AWB expired, but my state maintained its AWB, which used the same definition the federal law had used. But then one day I awoke to find that in the wee hours of the preceding night, my state legislature had changed the definition, and my previously ordinary semi-automatic rifle had suddenly morphed into a deadly "assault weapon" by a stroke of the governor's pen.

That's not how definitions or classifications are supposed to work.

[44 AMP]

...claiming that it is now common in the US military as well as the UK military for soldiers to refer to the M16 and the M4 as "battle rifles."

I'm sure that fellow's claim about how soldiers refer to things is correct. SOLDIERS refer to things in many ways, which are not the same as the standard definitions, or civilian use of the terms. And are not always correct, outside of military use. And then, there is also military SLANG, which is sometimes almost its own insular language....

I’m confused. I thought assault rifle was a purely political term as opposed to battle rifle which was a grouping term used by people in conversation, authors and the like to show rifles carried into battle where the gun and ammo are carried by a single person.

You are confused. Where the gun and its ammo are carried by a single person, the proper term is "individual weapons" Where the gun and its ammo require more than one person to carry and use the proper term is "Crew served weapon". By definition an assault rifle, is an individual weapon.

I have a tendency to take language very literally as in, words have specific meanings. I live by the Thesaurus but it's full of nuance, etc.

That said, if you're in a battle and you have a rifle, I suppose it's a "battle rifle." If you point a rifle at someone and threaten them with it, an assault, then I suppose that makes it an "assault rifle," and so on and so forth.

People taking things literally is always a problem for people who don't.
There are times when literal use of terms is proper, and times when it is not.
The problem with defining something only by a specific use is, that definition becomes invalid without that use.

I think you are mis-remembering "assault weapon", a term used to confuse casual observers into thinking a semi-automatic rifle is an assault rifle.

"Battle rifle" is a retronym, a term applied not at the time the items were widely used, but to distinguish them from the "assault rifle" format that now dominates as service rifles issued by almost every country.

This is correct.

I think we take terminology and grammar too seriously on forums. Does it really matter ?

it absolutely matters when the discussion is about something that matters.

Anytime one discusses technical matters, and does not use terminology the same way everyone else does, it causes problems, which can range from minor irritation to life threatening serious.

Using terms correctly ALSO matters to the general definition, because dictionaries (real, printed, and online) give definitions as "found in popular use" as well as often giving historical use definitions, and rarely give correct definitions as used in technical terminology.

And proper use of terms really matters ALOT when those terms are put into laws. LEGAL definitions are sometimes seemingly at odds with common use definitions.

Also further complicating a complex situation is the fact that in English, and some other languages, words have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used.

And then there is also the "evolutionary process" of language, which, these days seems to primarily consist of people "redefining" established terms to suit their agenda, and claiming all other definitions are wrong, or obsolete, and you are somehow a force of evil if you do not agree with them.....

And political rhetoric is some of the worst.....

The term "assault rifle" (note, "rifle" not "weapon") originated in WWII Nazi Germany. It was coined by Adolph Hitler. Assault rifle is the usual English translation of the German term "Sturmgewehr".

After the war the firearms community essentially standardized the term "assault rifle" using the German Sturmgewehr as the base model of the type. There were three key features used in the definition, and they were, box magazine fed, fired an "intermediate" power cartrdge, and was capable of select fire operation. "Intermediate power cartridge" was defined as more powerful than standard pistol but less powerful then standard (infantry) rifle, by WWII standards. In other words, more powerful than 9mm or .45ACP, but less powerful than 8mm Mauser (8x57), .30-06, or .303 British.

Select fire is the ability of the user to select semi auto or full auto fire.

If the weapon had all three features it was an assault rifle. If it did not, it was not an assault rifle. A rifle could have other features such as a pistol grip, or a straight line stock, or other things, but those did not define it as an assault rifle.

Assault weapon is a term created in the 90s by the news media and adopted enthusiastically by a certain political faction, codified in Federal Law in 1994, and in general use and misuse today.

And, in a small way, its our fault....
Because we corrected the media. It goes back to the Stockton mass murder in 1989. The killer used a semi auto variant of the AK 47, and then killed himself, leaving the media to focus not on him, but on the weapon he used.

They repeatedly called it an "assault rifle". Our side responded with the technically accurate explanation that since it was not select fire, it was not an assault rifle. Our goal in this was (a since proven mistaken belief) that the media would happily accept the correction and would thereafter report accurately.

They did not. They could not dispute the accuracte, factual definition of assault rifle, so they grudgingly began calling those kinds of guns "semiautomatic assault rifles". This term proved to be a very cumbersome "sound bite" and after a short time, they created the term "assault weapon".

As written into the 1994 Federal law (and several state laws at the time) the term "assault weapon" covered SEMI AUTOMATIC rifles, pistols, and shotguns, IF they had certain listed (and actually only cosmetic) features.

NO assault rifles were covered under the 1994 law, not a single one. ONLY semiauto arms that had the features on the list in the law.

Under US law, actual assault rifles, because they are select fire, are legally machine guns, and fall under the rules of the NFA 1934 gun control act.

People get easily confused (and it is widely believed that the term assault weapon was specifically chosen to confuse people) because of our natural tendency in language to shorten and misapply terms. If it is an assault weapon, and it is a rifle, people tend to think of it as an assault "rifle" and by proper definition, that is incorrect.

the term has been used and misused so much that today several dictionaries are listing the misuse as the actual definition.

There's lots more to it, of course, but this should help clear up some of the confusion and give you some points to think about.

[lunger]

[QUOTE]I think we take terminology and grammar too seriously on forums. Does it really matter ?[QUOTE]

t absolutely matters when the discussion is about something that matters.

Anytime one discusses technical matters, and does not use terminology the same way everyone else does, it causes problems, which can range from minor irritation to life threatening serious.

This is the too serious part. Life threatening? It is gun forum

[44 AMP]

This is the too serious part. Life threatening? It is gun forum

Right, its a gun forum. So if someone told you something drastically wrong and potentially dangerous on a gun forum (or ANY forum) , and you did it, and suffered injury or even death as a result, that's not serious???

I beg to differ.

[Aguila Blanca]

It isn't life threatening. But this thread originated because I foolishly attempted to help a budding young author avoid making a fairly egregious error about firearms in a book he's writing.

What I failed to consider was that the individual is so deeply engrossed in the computer gaming world that he believes what he sees on his monitor is unquestionably correct. Here's a quote:

I play Assassin's Creed. That game is realistic. And being a realistic action game, if you shoot an enemy with a pistol, that enemy is likely done and over with in one shot. Maybe two but no more.

Nowadays though, even though assault rifles are the most powerful weapon in the world, ...

It goes on, but you can get the gist of it. I should have taken Napoleon's advice ("Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.") and just let the dweeb write his silliness. (Not saying he's an enemy, but he is singularly ungrateful for any advice -- from anyone -- that runs counter to his preconceptions.)

[jmr40]

I think we take terminology and grammar too seriously on forums. Does it really matter ?

Yes, it matters a lot. Making tiny changes in words or punctuation can completely change the meaning of what you say. I see this all the time by politicians. They say one thing, but because of their choice of words some people hear the exact opposite of what they said. Read the 2 following sentences carefully. Same words but 2 commas' completely change the meaning.

A woman without her man is useless.

A woman, without her, man is useless.

If you listen to politicians carefully and dissect their words, you'll see this sort of thing all the time. D's and R's both do it to confuse voters. Each side hears what they want.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

It goes on, but you can get the gist of it. I should have taken Napoleon's advice ("Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.") and just let the dweeb write his silliness. (Not saying he's an enemy, but he is singularly ungrateful for any advice -- from anyone -- that runs counter to his preconceptions.)

I do think older men can come across as lecturing and overbearing. We remember ourselves grateful when someone who knew the answer explains it to us instead of letting us learn by consequence (the hard knocks curriculum), and we imagine others will see our benign intent. Young men are often building off a necessarily small experience of their own and extrapolating it into overconfidence. I'm currently explaining AR choices to someone who isn't very familiar with them; I'm using short very general assertions stated plainly, without the qualifications and diplomacy I'd use with a stranger. He's grateful for the information because he's an older fellow and he knows my manner isn't malevolant just because it's abrupt.

No, you should not regret attempting a good deed just because it failed, imo. Leaving people to themselves when we can genuinely help lets our better impulses atrophy.

[bamaranger]

I've listened to more than one military or soldier type (no offense intended) who did not have their terminology , vernacular, or facts quite right. For example, there seems to be a fair bit of interchangeability over the designation "7.62". Have you read Chis Kyles "American Gun"? The book was co=authored after his death (that may not be the right description) but even so, terms are used loosely and recognized as not quite right by folks that are. ....enthusiasts.

The shooting sport is a technical one, and specific terms do have specific meanings. Misuse of terms implies an unfamiliarity with the topic and I think leads the reader to judge the narrative as flawed and thus of little significance. Get your lingo right and folks will take you more seriously.

[stagpanther]

Unless they are a shooter themselves with experience with the firearm in question--my golden rule is NEVER engage in conversation with people unknown to me. I don't have time for troll-baiting.

[stuckinthe60s]

with 22 years military background, and being out for as long or longer, i will claim ignorance and just post what i was lead to believe in my small world. times have changed since i retired so its just up for anyone to consider, i make no claim to correctness...........
i always understood a battle rifle to be a main full size caliber weapon. at the time of ww2, that was the 30-06. the battle (head to head combat,) rifle had (in my opinion) more than one use and was uniform in design, firing, smashing, laddering, prying, stabbing, launching, etc... ammo was sent forward to support the battle.
the assault rifle (take a preplanned objective,)was unique for a certain task, i/e: burp gun, M1 carbine, thompson, folding stock weapons, etc.. ammo was packed in.
you had your main infantry i/e: 4th inf', and special operations groups, i/e: 'submarine boat crews, frogmen, boarding teams, oss, etc...

nam comes along. the 7.62 M14 was the battle rifle, the 5.56 m16 was a security weapon/assault weapon.
the 14 gets dropped, and so does the battle term. all weapons become assault weapons. why? the type of combat shifted from head to head to air assault and patrol in nam. yes yes, there was head to head, and the complaints of not enough firepower from a 556 came up too.

so here we are today. all weapons are assault weapons. when complaints arose concerning power at distance in the sand box, well well....the 14 was reintroduced. the battle rifle never went away afterall.

like i say, this is just my opinion and i dont claim it to be factual. i report, you decide. hope it helps.

[Shadow9mm]

Into the weeds we go!

Technically speaking an object can be described based on its intended use, or actual use.

For example the term baseball bat. It is a bat(stout stick or club) used to play baseball. If you kept and used the bat as a weapon you could describe it as a bat, or a home defense tool, or a club or cudgel as it no longer had any real relationship with the game of baseball.

In much the same way a rifle used in battle could correctly be called a battle rifle regardless of its chambering.

In the firearms community we generally use the terms battle rifle and assult rifle(or weapon) to differentiate between rifles that fire full power rifle cartridge vs intermediate rifle cartridges.

Last i checked words, individual words had specific definitions. You cant put those words together and create a new definition based on those couple words or a phrase, i think that is where the problem lies. You have to look at the words themselves, how they interact, and with English, the context in which they are being used.

[Jim Watson]

Agree with Z

"Battle rifle" is a retronym, a term applied not at the time the items were widely used, but to distinguish them from the "assault rifle" format that now dominates as service rifles issued by almost every country.

And, since most users have gone small bore, the terms are both anachronistic.