Paulie
Diamond Member
- May 19, 2007
- 40,769
- 6,382
- 1,830
I’m not even willing to give it THAT much relevance. The phrase itself is just stupid on its own merits. When there’s an unimaginable amount of different things you can use to assault someone, it’s the height of stupidity to use such a vague term to classify a weapon.The term "assault rifle" is clearly defined, based on the original "assault rifle" or "storm rifle" produced by the fucking Nazis.\This is stupid. Assault is a word. There was a time when the musket was the “assault rifle” as it was the weapon used by the military for their assault. Since they no longer use the musket, is the musket now no longer an assault rifle?
See the WW2 Sturmgewehr 44. Literally translates as "storm rifle" but means "assault rifle."
![]()
It was the combination of the light CQB weapons (sub-machine guns that used pistol ammunition) and the more powerful, longer-ranged battle rifles. It fires an intermediate sized cartridge (not a pistol round, and not a full-powered rifle round). So, it accomplishes the role of both, and fires like both (select fire).
An example would be the weapons in WW2. The U.S. would have used this type of rifle to replace the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Thompson Sub, and the M3 grease gun.
The civilian versions of these "assault rifles" do not have the same capabilities (select fire), and are not assault rifles, by definition.
.