Anyone notice that when Ukrainians crowd gun stores to buy AR-10s and AR-15s, the media

[Atticus]

describes their purchases as "assault rifles", NOT "deer rifles" or "hunting rifles"?

[Dial H For Hero]

1. The media routinely describes such weapons as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons".

The latter is the more accurate term, as these rifles are not capable of fully automatic fire, which assault rifles are by definition.

[Atticus]

2. And gun humpers "routinely" explain how the AR-15 is a "sporting" or "hunting" rifle and

absolutely positively NOT a weapon designed for killing people.

My OP was just a brief observation. There are more urgent topics right now.

Carry on.

[Dial H For Hero]

5. It's one of the most popular hunting rifles in America. That having been said, it was certainly

designed for killing people.

Then again, exactly the same could have been accurately said of (for instance) the Springfield M1903 bolt action rifle.

[mitch96]

13. "most popular hunting rifles in America.".. They hunt with a 5.56 round?

I would assume the ballistics of the high velocity 5.56 would just tear up the meat. Now on the other hand if you are hunting ferrel hog that's another story.
In my youth we would hunt dear with a 30-30 which is ballistically similar to the 7.62x39.
Could not afford a 30-06 or .240 back then. YMMV
m

[Dial H For Hero]

18. 5.56 is popular for hunting varmints (coyotes, groundhogs, etc.) but the AR-15 can be chambered

in dozens of different cartridges, many of which are quite suitable for big game.

[tosh]

31. Groundhogs?

Really?

[Dial H For Hero]

35. Really. Groundhog hunting is quite popular.

[NickB79]

40. There are a lot of controlled expansion 5.56 bullets around

They hold together and mushroom like a big game bullet.

And .300 Blackout is very popular, as it mimics 7.62x39 ballistics.

The .350 Legend is a newer round that's gaining ground too, because it mimics the .30-30

[Dan]

29. Bolt action single shot before you eject the expended cartridge.

[Dial H For Hero]

36. I'm well aware, but I was addressing the talking point of the AR-15 being designed to kill people

and thus being inappropriate for civilian use. By that standard, no civilian should own a military issue flintlock.

[SYFROYH]

14. They can and are used that way more often than to commit murders.

By way, that bolt action 30-06 rifle some people call hunting rifles was originally designed to be a "weapon of war" (WOW!).

carry on.

[mitch96]

19. Yup, the .223 is a bettter hunting round than the military 5.56 but most "sporting rifles"

are chambered for the military 5.56.. That says a lot on where their head is at. To me it's like having a mega horsepower Dodge SRT as a "daily driver" ...yea right..
m

[Dial H For Hero]

37. Their ballistics are virtually identical and either can be had with appropriate bullets for hunting.

[James48]

39. You're kidding me with that, right?

The difference between .223 and 5.56mm is simply cartridge brass wall thickness, and a miniscule amount of powder loading that would be indistinguishable to the person hit with either round. It's not the caliber of the round that makes a rifle more or less lethal.

A deer-rifle .30-06 is much more powerful. It USED to be the American standard for military rifle ammo. now either .223 or 5.56mm can be used in Army rifles interchangably.

[mitch96]

41. "indistinguishable to the person hit "... I thought we were talking about hunting...nt

[ForgedCrank]

45. First off,

I don't "hump guns".
Getting past that, the AR-15 most certainly wasn't designed for killing people. It's a civilian market semi-auto and has more in common with a 10/22 than it does the M16 military rifles.
It's difficult to explain it to folks who insist on categorizing a rifle based on what plastic pieces are bolted to it, and call it's owners gun humpers.

[Atticus]

47. Ha-ha! Yeah, ok---whatever. nt

[exboyfil]

3. There is a middle ground

Many of the semiautomatic rifles sold in the US are customized for use in tactical situations. A semiautomatic used for hunting is designed for that purpose (form follows function). The "assault" rifles look like their automatic brethren because, except for the inability for continuous fire with a single finger pull, they are functionally identical (granted military grade should be more robust and capable of sustaining repeated firing better).

[Dial H For Hero]

9. Higher quality AR-15's are actually every bit as robust as their selective fire counterparts.

Many of their parts are identical (if not superior) to the military-issue M16. Of course, they're priced accordingly.

As for the middle ground...kind of/sort of. While I would certainly take an AR-15 over a traditionally styled semiautomatic hunting rifle were I to need it for combat, it gets a bit blurry with rifles such as the Mini-14, some versions of which have wooden stocks, no pistol grip or flash suppressor, etc., and yet the practical effective difference between them and an AR-15 is virtually nil.

[AndyS]

20. Hero you are once more so terribly wrong that it's hard to describe.

You repeat the gun lobby trope that only full auto guns can be called 'assault' weapons. Because that is what they want you to do.

Eugene Stoner designed the God forsaken killing machine and named it Assault Rifle. If the guy who made the damn thing called it Assault Rifle then that's what it is.

If you want a truly make believe description of the gun try 'modern sporting rifle', a term that did not exist until the NRA coined it to sell more guns.

[Dial H For Hero]

25. Only full auto guns can be assault rifles. Semiautos can be assault weapons. There is a difference.

While the AR-15 designed by Stoner in 1956 was indeed selective fire, the "AR" in the name stands for Armalite Rifle. When Colt acquired the rights to it in 1959, they shortly thereafter started production of the semiautomatic version of it, keeping the name. Thus, the original AR-15 was indeed an assault rifle, but all semiautomatic versions are assault weapons.

It's not something I try to be pedantic about anymore unless someone makes it a point to purposefully use the term incorrectly, just as I no longer correct those who don't know the difference between magazines and clips.

Just as an aside, didn't you make a New Year's resolution not to reply to "gunners"?

[Dan]

32. Designation aside (not getting into that debate) the AR-15

Is a killing machine. How fast you depress the trigger given the magazine size, combined with accuracy defines the degree of killing you can do. So, what is an assault, I will leave to better minds than mine.

Maybe, someone might want to have a seriously sick conversation on the damage that these rounds can have on human flesh.

[AndyS]

33. I tried to keep the NY resolution but the utter brazoness of the lies

told by gunners made it impossible to keep to it.

I genuinely admire the tortured way gunners twist and mangle language to justify some minute point. The difference between rifle and weapon is a distinction without a difference.

The AR-15 and it's predecessor the AR-10 were originally presented as semi auto prototypes and later went into production as the select fire and the designation changed to M-16 when purchased by the Pentagon. It makes no difference as long as gunners take such liberties with language and truth they can make orange into green and killing machines designed to a Military RFQ into 'modern sporting rifles'.

Anyway, assault rife vs assault weapon has me in awe of the gunner propensity to paint a target around the bullet hole in the barn.

[Dial H For Hero]

34. A distinction without a difference? The law rather pointedly disagrees.

I can purchase an assault weapon from someone with no more than an exchange of funds and a handshake. Doing the same with an assault rifle nets me ten years in prison.

[JohnnyRingo]

24. Absolutely true, but

I suspect civies might suddenly have full auto military weapons available to them, complements a red white & blue friend. I noticed on the news a lot of civilians armed with western long guns like AR-15s.

It would only make sense that our foreign aid to the country would quietly change from butter to guns.

[Paladin]

4. Golly. Three replies, and I'm blocked from seeing any of them.

Atticus, you must have set off our resident pro-gun militants, big-time. My compliments.

[EYESORE 9001]

6. It doesn't take much

[Paladin]

10. So I've noticed, over the last 20 years. (nt)

[SCantiGOP]

21. They lurk until they hear the word "gun"

[Swede]

7. Sturmgewehr (stormgun in English) was the probably the first ever assault rifle.

And now they infest the world. Made for killing people.

[Dial H For Hero]

12. There's an argument to be made for the Russian Federov Avtomat, first made in 1916.

That being said, the first truly successful assault rifle was certainly the German Stg 44.

[orangecrush]

11. I'll buy them one

And write Putin's name on every bullet.

[Keket]

15. Nobody needs an AR-15

They should be banned and confiscated. Anyone who refuses should be imprisoned.

Keket
~You can be a good person or you can be a Republican. You can't be both.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Welcome to DU, Keket!

And thank you for your thoughts on having an AR-15. You could not be more correct.

[SCantiGOP]

22. Welcome aboard, Keket

Anyone who wants military weapons can get one for free……..by joining the military.

[ForgedCrank]

46. "Anyone who wants military weapons can get one for free........by joining the military"

Exactly. And that is the only way you can get one without going through an extremely stringent process of government oversight and monitoring. Not to mention, even after going through all of that to get approved, a ratty broken down junker will cost you as much as your car. So yea, "military weapons" in civilian hands is not an issue in the US.

[SYFROYH]

23. I don't think so.

[Skittles]

44. you are trying way too hard

ya know?

[Aviation Pro]

17. What? No, 6.5 Creedmoor?

We're going to need bunches of snipers, so their Russian mothers receive their sons with large holes in their heads and demoralize the Soviets.

[IronLionZion]

26. They can hunt animals and kill Russian invaders

it's not like they're mutually exclusive. It's still used for killing life.

In the US, people use it to kill feral wild hogs, coyotes, or lots of people in mass shootings.

[dlk]

27. They are weapons designed for hunting humans

There’s no rational excuse for civilians to ever have them.

[Dial H For Hero]

28. As is every military rifle going back to flintlocks and even earlier.

[dlk]

42. There is a difference...

[Dial H For Hero]

43. Of course there is, but you made the blanket statement that no civilian should have a weapon

designed to hunt humans. Flintlocks fall under that category, and outlawing them would be absurd.

[dlk]

30. They are weapons designed for hunting humans

There’s no rational excuse for civilians to ever have them.

[BobTheSubgenius]

38. Or, as Jim Jeffries satirized it

"Protection rifles."