What rifle should I buy?

[D23]

Forum Sponsor

I dunno where you found your dictionary definition but its wrong.

It's Websters current definition. How is it wrong exactly?

"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]"

That's the definition of the US Army. Defining what their parameters are in selecting their primary service rifle which is now the assault rifle platform vs. the MBR platform of the past. been that way for decades now.

This is Canada. I don't care what the US calls something. We can't buy it as automatic so we buy it as semi automatic.

Still assault rifle. Semi automatic assault rifle. or SAAW. Slice it however you wish.

A Busa with a 180KPH limiter is a Busa.

Most definitions of "assault rifle" include selective fire capabilities and it's just fine by me for political reasons.

Agreed for political reasons but even then, it's not Assault rifles that we can't have, it's making them Full auto rifles that's forbidden.

 

[BusaBob]

being a gun aficionado for the past 20 years, I have read up on the topic repeatedly, both in gun magazines, CSSA bulletins, and Jane's Defence periodicals, even more so these days due to the politics revolving around firearms. I have also been in the armed forces (reserve) for 5 years. Does this make me an expert on topic? Perhaps not. But I'm not a newbie to it either.

I'll take the USA military definition over the Webster's dictionary any day regarding this definition. The USA military definition that Redliner's pointed out also appears to be consistent with what the gun community at large is saying. ie. that an "assault rifle" is a military firearm firing small to intermediate caliber bullets with full and semi-automatic fire capability.

Any small or intermediate caliber rifle that can only fire in semi-automatic mode is just that: a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle, regardless of what it looks like.

To not distinguish between the two is to really confuse the two types. Generally the only people I see doing that are the anti-gun nuts, who would rather see a ban on all firearms altogether, and are trying to do so by leading people to believe that even "semi-auto's" are "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" as they like to say.

 

[Red_Liner740]

A Busa with a 180KPH limiter is a Busa.

And a semi-auto center fire rifle is STILL a semi-auto center fire rifle without the magic "pew pew pew" Select fire switch...

So let me show you something...

VS

I guess according to you the top rifle is an assault rifle? Its black, menacing, what all gun-grabbing fear mongers would describe as the perfect storm of "assault rifleness"??

Second one is a regular joe blow hunting rifle?? Except for the fact that they are the exact same rifle in different stocks.

Assault Rifle MUST have select fire....i dont care what Webster has to say....the people who originally came with the term Assault Rifle were the Germans with the Sturmgewehr 44, literally meaning the Assault rifle, which met all the criteria of AR's....intermediate cartridge, magazine fed, select fire. AK47 followed, M16 followed.

Why arent we calling them machine guns if we are throwing around definitions as we please.

 

[D23]

Seriously. Spare me the condescending "mini 14 in bubba gear" argument.

I will have 20 years in the Reg force Army completed tomorrow (Mayb 28th). I teach at LFCA TC. I instruct section and crew serve weapons in the field combat roll. I don't need you to talk down to me about what "scary black guns" are.

Do you think I'm afraid or lack some kind of understanding?

If it's designed as an assault rifle, sold as an assault rifle and used as an assault rifle by a military, it's an assault rifle. Doesn't matter what position the selector switch is set at.

If I took a Canadian sold Tavor to the IDF armory and swapped the guts out of one of their assault rifles into mine, without any modifications having to be made to the rifle itself, you couldn't tell which rifle was which save the serial number.

 

[D23]

an "assault rifle" is a military firearm firing small to intermediate caliber bullets with full and semi-automatic fire capability.

So you're saying the M-16 A2 used in combat by the USMC is not an assault rifle?

If you go to the USA and buy an AR-15 (semi automatic) without the paperwork and are caught you will be charged with illegal possession of a semi automatic assault rifle.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[daught]

They sell assault rifles at CT now? :shock:

GTA CTs have furniture at the entrance

 

[Red_Liner740]

Except that you CANT swap Canadian TAR from semi-auto to select fire using Israeli Military "guts". Canadian Firearms Reg specifically talks about prohibiting rifles that are "easily converted". Swapping parts is considered "easily converted". It is the reason the AK-47 is banned along with many other semi-auto rifles.



Same with the AR-15. For it to be sold and registered as a semi-auto in Canada the receiver MUST NOT have the pocket machined for the select fire trigger mechanism.

Its sad that you, with 20 years of experience with firearms, willfully choose to group these two types of rifles in the same category.

and you still didnt say anything about the Mini14, why is one an assault rifle and the other a "ranch rifle"?? Whats worse is that YOU KNOW ALL THIS, i'm not talking to some ignorant person who doesnt know better.....

Seriously. Spare me the condescending "mini 14 in bubba gear" argument.

I will have 20 years in the Reg force Army completed tomorrow (Mayb 28th). I teach at LFCA TC. I instruct section and crew serve weapons in the field combat roll. I don't need you to talk down to me about what "scary black guns" are.

Do you think I'm afraid or lack some kind of understanding?

If it's designed as an assault rifle, sold as an assault rifle and used as an assault rifle by a military, it's an assault rifle. Doesn't matter what position the selector switch is set at.

If I took a Canadian sold Tavor to the IDF armory and swapped the guts out of one of their assault rifles into mine, without any modifications having to be made to the rifle itself, you couldn't tell which rifle was which save the serial number.

 

[IMAWILDPARTY]

Seriously. Spare me the condescending "mini 14 in bubba gear" argument.

I will have 20 years in the Reg force Army completed tomorrow (Mayb 28th). I teach at LFCA TC. I instruct section and crew serve weapons in the field combat roll. I don't need you to talk down to me about what "scary black guns" are.

Do you think I'm afraid or lack some kind of understanding?

If it's designed as an assault rifle, sold as an assault rifle and used as an assault rifle by a military, it's an assault rifle. Doesn't matter what position the selector switch is set at.

If I took a Canadian sold Tavor to the IDF armory and swapped the guts out of one of their assault rifles into mine, without any modifications having to be made to the rifle itself, you couldn't tell which rifle was which save the serial number.

Thank you for your service, you're probably a better man than me.

Couldn't figure out a way to ask this without sounding more argumentative than I wanted to but here goes...

The SU16, by your definition(and mine) would not be considered an assault rifle. You would not consider it an assault rifle because a military never used it in such a role and I would not consider it one because it has no select-fire capability.

Now, if tomorrow a military adopted some version of the SU16 with select-fire capability(AKA redesigned it as an assault rifle), would all the SU16's become assault rifles overnight, regardless of select-fire capability?

So you're saying the M-16 A2 used in combat by the USMC is not an assault rifle?

The m16-a2 has select fire capability - semi-auto and burst. It is an assault rifle as per the US military definition, no issues there.

If you go to the USA and buy an AR-15 (semi automatic) without the paperwork and are caught you will be charged with illegal possession of a semi automatic assault rifle.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong if you're talking about getting caught re-entering Canada, or after being in Canada, "Illegal possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle" is not a charge here, you'd probably get charged with unauhorized possession of a weapon/restricted/dangerous to the public or something more along those lines. (AR-15 is ArmaLite rifle 15, as I'm sure you're aware, but I'm writing for the people less familiar)

The fact that every US state may have its own criminal charges concerning firearms means you probably will find 'assault rifles' somewhere in law.

 

[D23]

and you still didnt say anything about the Mini14, why is one an assault rifle and the other a "ranch rifle"?? Whats worse is that YOU KNOW ALL THIS, i'm not talking to some ignorant person who doesnt know better.....

I didn't say anything about the Mini 14 because we are talking about the Tavor. Maybe when you tell me why websters dictionary is wrong (still waiting) we can move further off topic and cover non Tavors.

Feel free to quote me where I SAID IT WAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE????

 

[D23]

The SU16, by your definition (and mine) would not be considered an assault rifle. You would not consider it an assault rifle because a military never used it in such a role and I would not consider it one because it has no select-fire capability.

Now, if tomorrow a military adopted some version of the SU16 with select-fire capability(AKA redesigned it as an assault rifle), would all the SU16's become assault rifles overnight, regardless of select-fire capability? .

If it was redesigned as an assault rifle? It wouldn't be an SU16 now would it? It would be an assault rifle because you just said, redesigned as an assault rifle for military service.

The m16-a2 has select fire capability - semi-auto and burst. It is an assault rifle as per the US military definition, no issues there.

Read what I quoted. Busa Bob said auto fire and semi auto. the M16 A2 doesn't have auto fire. Read acarefully so you comprehend the entire conversation and its context.

You're wrong if you're talking about getting caught re-entering Canada, or after being in Canada

I'm not talking about re entering Canada. So, another point missed on your part. Effort to read man, make it.

The fact that every US state may have its own criminal charges concerning firearms means you probably will find 'assault rifles' somewhere in law.

I'm talking about the ATF, law, definition and resulting conviction. ATF is a NATIONAL agency so, I don't know what "every state may have" has to do with anything.

Someone post why Websters is not the authority on word definitions first off, then someone post why "semi automatic assault rifle" isn't an actual thing.

Please don't reply with "because mall ninjas say so on the internet".

 

[IMAWILDPARTY]

If it was redesigned as an assault rifle? It wouldn't be an SU16 now would it? It would be an assault rifle because you just said, redesigned as an assault rifle for military service.

I agree that the redesigned version with select-fire would be an assault rifle. But that would not make the previous models (similar in every way except for lack of select fire) into assault rifles overnight.

Following this, the 'redesigned for civilian purpose' AR15 is not an assault rifle, it is lacking select-fire capability.

If adding select-fire turns a gun firing an intermediate cartridge into an assault rifle, why wouldn't removing select-fire and leaving only semi-auto take it out of the class?

Read what I quoted. Busa Bob said auto fire and semi auto. the M16 A2 doesn't have auto fire. Read acarefully so you comprehend the entire conversation and its context.

I am aware of what you were responding to, which (I believe) was a misstatement by Busa Bob that the commonly held 'US military' definition strictly included full-auto, while my understanding was that it simply required select-fire. Though at the time of the first written known definition by a US military source(according to my understanding), burst fire was not a feature on any US rifles. So, someone could make an argument, based on inferences, that full-auto capability would be a must. I hold simply that select-fire is a criteria that makes more sense.

If you mean that you were simply adressing something that you considered a misquote, that was unclear to me.

I'm talking about the ATF, law, definition and resulting conviction. ATF is a NATIONAL agency so, I don't know what "every state may have" has to do with anything.

I did a quick search and could not find an ATF charge specific to 'assault rifles', but if you are aware of one(speifically the 'possession of a semi-automatic assault rifle' charge you referred to), or where I can find what you're refering to, point me in the right dirrection.

The business concerning different states relates to US states having their own criminal codes, so you might be able to find a state-level law which makes mention of assault rifles.

Someone post why Websters is not the authority on word definitions first off, then someone post why "semi automatic assault rifle" isn't an actual thing.

Please don't reply with "because mall ninjas say so on the internet".

Websters attempts to define words as they are commonly used, and I'm not sure you could find the exact methodology they used to come up with the definition. The interesting thing abut that is since our usage of words changes, so does our definition. Word usage is also very regional. I know people who call grouse partridge, and in their town everyone calls grouse partridge, despite the fact that they are different species. The majority of people at my old job called my little 250 japanese bike a harley. They were in the majority, their use was common, but that as a measure of correctness doesn't quite sit well with me.

It is interesting to note that the webster definition on the same page shows a 'concise encyclopedia' entry

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Here's what you wrote earlier:

Here's the dictionary definition of the word.

Assault weapon : any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially : assault rifle

You're talking about 'assault weapons' here, which is an even more convoluted term and by that definition includes any semi-auto handguns or hunting rifles or shotguns.

I guess I have to tell my hunting buddies to be extra careful with their assault hunting weapons:

You know your guns, probably much better than I do. I just don't understand your methodology for defining what an assault rifle is, or even what definition you use.

 

[GreyGhost]

I guess I have to tell my hunting buddies to be extra careful with their assault hunting weapons:

[sarcasm] You've got it wrong, that's a sniper rifle because it has a scope. [/sarcasm]

 

[D23]

I just don't understand your methodology for defining what an assault rifle is, or even what definition you use.

It's simple. Use the Army definition you used to define an assault rifle. Take the select fire out of it so it's only semi automatic...... and you have a semi automatic assault rifle.

See, simplified.

And I left the hyperlink in the assault weapon definition to assault rifle. Click the link and read it for clarity.

BTW: can someone link how a Canadian imported Tavor is not capable of being converted to select fire?

I'm not talking about US legalities and ITAR issues. We don't have them here in that regard.

I was told our Tavor can be, but I'll take a good source that explains it can't if someone can provide it.

 

[IMAWILDPARTY]

From the link:

Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

This definition does not rule out m14's, as they are semi-automatic (or auto, depending on vintage) and use 'large capacity' magazines. Sure, while they don't fire an intermediate cartridge, and are widely considered main battle rifles, your definition puts them in the assault rifle class. In addition, your definition puts it's cousin, the m21 Sniper Weapon System in the category of assault rifles. It is, semi-auto, large cap mags and designed for military.

Additionally, you still haven't pointed me towards the 'semi-automatic assault rifle possession' charge you insisted exists. Anyhow, if such a charge does exist in the US, I find it odd you would consider it useful, considering what you said earlier:

That's the definition of the US Army. Defining what their parameters are in selecting their primary service rifle which is now the assault rifle platform vs. the MBR platform of the past. been that way for decades now.

This is Canada. I don't care what the US calls something.

Unless it helps your argument?

It's simple. Use the Army definition you used to define an assault rifle. Take the select fire out of it so it's only semi automatic...... and you have a semi automatic assault rifle.

See, simplified.

Of course I disagree with this reasoning because I understand selective fire(among other characteristics) to be necessary to classification as an assault rifle.

It's like saying you have a combination wrench, then cut off the box end, and you have an open-end only combination wrench.

If it doesn't have both ends, it just isn't a combination wrench.

I don't insist my understanding of the definition (the one the mall ninjas like: shoulder-fired, intermediate cartridge, select-fire, mag-fed) must absolutely be the best one, but it is the one I've seen that runs into the fewest problems and strikes me as most useful. The webster's definition is hardly useful without further defining large capacity magazines and then would likely include guns like the 1918BAR or Bren light machine gun.

Do you consider the 1918BAR an assault rifle? If not, explain which of the criteria "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use" it does not satisfy.

 

[D23]

Tavor is an assault rifle. It was made to kill humans in combat. Not, it can kill humans like every other firearm pretty much can, no. It's sole purpose and design is to kill in combat. It is a short, lightweight, intermediate cartridge rifle that is maneuverable in today's combat environment and accurate to today's engagement ranges.

It's hilarious that there is even anyone who would argue it isn't.

And a BAR is not an assault rifle LOL. It's a relic. It's a support weapon. It's bigger and less maneuverable than any MBR.

Tavor is not a hunting rifle. It's not a precision rifle. It's not anything other than an assault rifle.

Clinging to the US Army definition of what they require in an assault rifle is fine if you don't see that.

If you think you can't use it in combat without auto fire, fine again.

I'll continue to call it what it is, you continue to make arguments against what it is. But not with me, because it's like you are trying to convince me of christ.

You won't change my mind and I'm not worried if you want to keep going on in denial.

As I said earlier. A Busa with a 180KPH limiter is still a Busa. It can't perform in the "hypersport" catagory any more at a competitive level but it's still a Busa.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

The original Tavor is an assault rifle. The sporting version of it was redesigned to be a target and coyote hunting gun, hence the removal of selective fire capability. It's along the lines of street bikes and race bikes being different even though they're built on the same platform.

 

[r1junky]

not saying i agree/disagree with you anymore than anyone else, but it seems you are taking a more generalized approach to defining an assault rifle compared to others who are being more specific. we're dealing in the grey area as opposed to black and white here so it's easy to argue one way or the other.

If you think you can't use it in combat without auto fire, fine again.

although it could be used in combat, so could a .22, it doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

As I said earlier. A Busa with a 180KPH limiter is still a Busa. It can't perform in the "hypersport" catagory any more at a competitive level but it's still a Busa.

a neutered busa is a busa in name only. there's a difference between form and function and both need to be satisfied. just because it looks like a busa, when it doesn't function like one is kind of stretching the definition. can't say you're wrong in calling it a busa, but it isn't accurate either. i'd argue that a busa is a sport-tourer rather than a hypersport, but thats a different debate.

 

[IMAWILDPARTY]

Tavor is an assault rifle. It was made to kill humans in combat. Not, it can kill humans like every other firearm pretty much can, no. It's sole purpose and design is to kill in combat. It is a short, lightweight, intermediate cartridge rifle that is maneuverable in today's combat environment and accurate to today's engagement ranges.

You have gone from saying that there exists some definition, to pretty much saying an assault rifle is whatever you feel it is(clearly you were unable to defend the definition you previously held as the final word in definitions). Which is fine in a way, just don't bandy around the idea that your classification is based on anything else.

 

[D23]

You have gone from saying that there exists some definition, to pretty much saying an assault rifle is whatever you feel it is(clearly you were unable to defend the definition you previously held as the final word in definitions). Which is fine in a way, just don't bandy around the idea that your classification is based on anything else.

No, I said an assault rifle is any rifle designed as an assault rifle. I said the Tavor we have here is a Semi automatic assault rifle. It can't fire full auto without modification but, it can use every part from a FA assault rifle because it is the same thing.

I was told this by a guy who owns a Tavor (CAN) and fired a IDF Tavor. That's what I'm going off and again, will accept any proof to the contrary.

I asked if anyone had that info but so far, crickets.

I gave the dictionary definition of both assault weapon and assault rifle. I don't need to defend that since the Tavor fits that description. I didn't say MY definition is limited to just what is said and nothing more but you are grasping at straws now so.....

If you don't agree with me I can accept that. It's fine.

If I say semi automatic assault rifle any time in the future (to differentiate from full auto) just let it go. Don't have a **** fit. Or do. Lose your ****ing mind about it and attempt to change mine if you wish.

although it could be used in combat, so could a .22, it doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

Actually it is the best tool for the job. The principal is fire aimed shots. We do not teach auto fire any more. It wastes ammo and isn't accurate. That's what section weapons like the C9 are for. Even in advance to contact "suppression fire" is done SA. We stopped teaching the one thing you use auto fire in an assault rifle for about 15 years ago.

Not an argument or anything. Just saying "machine guns" are a thing of the past.

 

[mmmnaked]

Awesome argument over semantics, guys... :lmao:

Forum Sponsor