What rifle should I buy?

Forum Sponsor
D23 said:
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.

:)
Click to expand...

I guess by your logic my stock cbr is a moto gp bike eh ;)
 
Paul1000RR said:
I guess by your logic my stock cbr is a moto gp bike eh ;)
Click to expand...

Of course dude, it probably have the Repsol paint scheme too

Sent from my tablet using my paws
 
D23 said:
No, I said an assault rifle is any rifle designed as an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

Alright, I don't like the loop I seem caught in here but here goes...

You already seemed to agree that you could take a civilian semi-auto and redesign it as an assault rifle by adding a characteristic such as full-auto.
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.
Click to expand...

And yet(according to what I understand from you) remove the characteristic the military might have added to make the gun acceptable as an assault rifle (ie select-fire) and it is still an assault rifle?

Civilian semiauto + Select Fire(redesign for military) = Assault rifle
Military Assault rifle - select fire(redesign for civilians to just semiauto ie. designed to not be an assault rifle) = Assault rifle

Odd, but I guess once you pop that assault rifle cherry, no going back.

D23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I find this sentence sort of confusing...

Let's flip it around here...

"I gave the dictionary definition of both assault weapon and assault rifle. I don't need to defend that since the 1918BAR fits that description."

That sentence seems to have as much validity to it as yours. Looks odd though, huh? I explain that I don't need to defend my supporting criteria because the item I'm describing fits the criteria... The criteria is therefore valid? I mean... 1918BAR is an assault rifle. Airtight. Heard it here first.

D23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I plan to overreact, I appreciate the understanding.
 
Last edited:
D23 said:
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.

:)
Click to expand...

That's precisely it: you can't say you're not modifying the rifle if you're swapping parts into it.

Also, these rifles have been vetted by the RCMP. They will not clear a semi-automatic rifle to be sold in Canada if it can be easily converted to fully automatic fire.


Also, you're comment about the M16A2 is a little misleading, as it is clearly not a semi-automatic. It is a select fire with 3 round burst capability instead of the traditional "full automatic". 3 bullets fired to one press of the trigger. I'd say that's automatic enough for me...and most authorities as I doubt that version would be available for civilian purchase. and a rifle with a 3 round burst capability most definitely is not in the same definition of semi-auto (fires one bullet per trigger squeeze, for those that do not know).

for all your military experience and all you know about firearms, you really are being obstinate on this matter.

a civilian version of an "assault rifle" will only fire semi-automatic. Any attempt to convert it to fully automatic (or 3-round burst capability for that matter) will be prohibited by law. And as a fact, the RCMP will block (or not approve for civilian sale) semi-automatic rifles which can easily be converted to fully automatic fire without machining/modification.

And that really is the issue: a semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle, regardless of what it looks like. I frankly don't care what merriam-webster's dictionary says, at that's not an authoritative / technical source. As has been mentioned previously, a dictionary like that will offer short, common usage definitions for lay people, but that's about all it's good for.

If that is the only source you are drawing your argument on, there really isn't much more to discuss.
 
Last edited:
IMAWILDPARTY said:
"I gave the dictionary definition of both assault weapon and assault rifle. I don't need to defend that since the 1918BAR fits that description."

That sentence seems to have as much validity to it as yours.
Click to expand...

BAR is an assault weapon, not an assault rifle. So you are correct.

mmmnaked said:
Awesome argument over semantics, guys... :lmao:
Click to expand...

You can keep a pro gun wacko on the hook for days. :)

They're like Jehovahs witness.
 
As much as antis would love to think its "assault rifle" AR actually stands for Armalite Rifle. That is how Eugene Stoner and Armalite named all their rifle. Ar-5 is I believe a bolt rifle. AR-7 is a small survival 22 LR semi auto first designed for pilots who crash landed in the bush.
 
Red_Liner740 said:
As much as antis would love to think its "assault rifle" AR actually stands for Armalite Rifle. That is how Eugene Stoner and Armalite named all their rifle. Ar-5 is I believe a bolt rifle. AR-7 is a small survival 22 LR semi auto first designed for pilots who crash landed in the bush.
Click to expand...

Awwwww and I thought it meant "Assault Rifle of Mass Destruction" (the oMD are silent) :cool: Actually, the manufacturers didn't resist the other designation because it helped generate sales with the mall ninja crowd while those who knew - knew that the "A" stood for "Armalite".
 
D23 said:
BAR is an assault weapon, not an assault rifle. So you are correct.
Click to expand...

The BAR in M1918 BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle. It has rifle in the name(Rifle, Caliber .30, Automatic, Browning, M1918 was apparently the official designation for it). It also fits your webster definition of assault rifle. I really don't understand how you fail to see that and the resulting conclusion that the webster definition is laughable.
Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
Click to expand...
Automatic-check
Rifle-check(remember the RIFLE in the Browning Automatic Rifle?)
Large capacity magazine-check
Designed for military use-check

You've already called it an assault weapon, and it is a rifle(a huge heavy one that shoots full auto), to say it isn't means you're goign to have to come up with the D23 dictionary of 'whatever I say goes'. And in it define rifle for everyone(hint-you're going to have to ignore the webster definition on that one too).

I'm not sure if you feel like if you back down one inch on this it'll somehow reflect badly on your job or something(which is not defining words).

The definition you apparently hold 'designed as an assault rifle' makes some kind of sense but the stuff you use to back it up, the far too broad and useless webster definition which doesnt rule out many guns such as the BAR or the m21 is clearly useless.

It also doesn't make sense to me how you seem to believe adding a feature makes something an assault rifle but removing that same feature does not take it out of the class.

D23 said:
Yep, but I'm the one in the boat with the line in the water in this instance :)
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's your cheap copout, but if that's the case then bravo. It would make sense. The word obstinate was used, the level at which you resist admitting any kind of mistake would lend credence to the idea that you're a troll.

You've had the biggest laugh, now quit confusing people.
 
Last edited:
IMAWILDPARTY said:
You already seemed to agree that you could take a civilian semi-auto and redesign it as an assault rifle by adding a characteristic such as full-auto.
Click to expand...
LOL no I didn't. You're getting desperate to the point of pathetic.I said if you redesigned an SU-16 to be an assault rifle it wouldn't be an SU-16. You would have something else. I'm not sure what part of an SU-16 you think would still remain but it's your suggestion to turn a POS like that into an assault rifle, not mine. I've seen people put monster truck guts in a mini so nothing really suprises me now adays.I have stated since the beginning an assault rifle is an assault rifle because it started as and ended up an assault rifle. The Tavor is an assault rifle. It's used by the IDF and other MIL/LE agencies as such.We have a semi automatic version of it for sale to civillians. If we modify it, it's now an illegal weapon because it's been modified to full auto (or burst, which to Busa Bob anyway, is the same thing).Please provide evidence that it can't be simply modified to take the auto fuction parts.It's a side point to the conversation but I'm interested in finding out.
 
IMAWILDPARTY said:
The BAR in M1918 BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle. It has rifle in the name(Rifle, Caliber .30, Automatic, Browning, M1918 was apparently the official designation for it). It also fits your webster definition of assault rifle. I really don't understand how you fail to see that and the resulting conclusion that the webster definition is laughable.
Click to expand...
It's not my websters definition. It's websters definition.I gave you my definition (and it told you I gave you my definition) previously.BAR does not fire an intermediate cartridge, does not engage targets at an assault rifles range, is not lightweight easily mobile, is not effective at house clearing or tight urban combat and about 10 other (is not, does not's) things.So, it's an assault weapon, for assulting, as a section support weapon. It's not an assault rifle, an individual service rifle.Anything else you want me to say for the third time?
 
D23 said:
LOL no I didn't. You're getting desperate to the point of pathetic.I said if you redesigned an SU-16 to be an assault rifle it wouldn't be an SU-16. You would have something else. I'm not sure what part of an SU-16 you think would still remain but it's your suggestion to turn a POS like that into an assault rifle, not mine.
Click to expand...

Please list the characteristics of an assault rifle.

Then, explain which of those characteristics an SU16 would not satisfy(were it redesigned for military by adding select fire).(It already satisfies the webster definition you seem to believe holds some validity)
 
IMAWILDPARTY said:
I'm not sure if you feel like if you back down one inch on this it'll somehow reflect badly on your job or something(which is not defining words).
Click to expand...
OK, be sure that I don't think that. I would have to be trying to convince you of something and again, again, again I have said I don't care what you think something is. You can think whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
No, I'm saying it's a definition of a tem, from websters. You know, Websters that exists to define terms.I never said it's not important. I also didn't make the entry so yes, its not my term. Do you want me to find out who wrote it for you???LOL: I'll throw you back. Under the weight limit and pretty much usesless as a sport fish. Your inability to understand things isn't my problem.
 
Last edited:
D23 said:
No, I'm saying it's a definition of a tem, from websters. You know, Websters that exists to define terms.I never said it's not important. I also didn't make the entry so yes, its not my term. Do you want me to find out who wrote it for you???LOL: I'll throw you back. Under the weight limit and pretty much usesless as a sport fish. Your inability to understand things isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

Alright...
-So the webster's definition is important(according to you, or at the least, you never said it isn't important, and you felt strongly enough about not having said it to write it...)
-Where the webster's definition does not suit your definition, you can add whatever terms to it that you like.

So... The webster's definition is important(or at least isn't unimportant), but it's wrong where it accepts the BAR as an assault rifle? At the same time, the webster's definition isn't useless garbage?

I must be reading this wrong.

I know I must appear rather dense, but I was just trying to understand what looked like the use of the webster's definition to support a claim.

I also wanted to point out that you insisted on some assault rifle charge existing on the national level in the US (in order to somehow back your claims), and when you were challenged on it, you ignored it.

I guess what we can agree on is that you and I accept the same standards for an assault rifle, with the exception that you don't believe select-fire is a necessary feature for the classification.
 
Last edited:
Last time.

The tavor suits the definition by websters as an assault rifle.

the Tavor suits my definition of an assault rifle, which is more detailed.

The Tavor is an assault rifle.

The BAR does not suit my definition of an assault rifle. The BAR is not an assault rifle. It is an assault weapon. A section support weapon. (In a time machine)

You are saying the tavor isn't an assault rifle. You are saying the BAR is.

Thats fine. You can think that all you want.

What you cant say is "my definition" is ONLY based on Websters.

Feel free to ask me a qustion I answed pages ago for a fourth time though.
 
Last edited:
D23 said:
You are saying the tavor isn't an assault rifle. You are saying the BAR is.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the tavor that we can buy isn't an assault rifle(Based on the lack of select fire which I see as necessary for the classification)
I'm saying that the BAR is an assault rife based on the asinine webster's definition, a definition you won't admit is useless garbage. Don't try to muddy the waters.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom