So you accept that the requirement of a carbine barrel is not crucial to the AR?
Now the use of the term Assault weapon is a red herring and I will discount it.
You link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
Also has this slightly farther down,
Common misconceptions of the term “assault weapon”
The close similarity to the term assault rifle and wide variety of definitions has led to considerable confusion over this term.
“A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres”.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
This is from a link I gave you some day ago and you said
Well, your “expert” lost it right there when he said “comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly” He’s completely thinking is a little wooden box.
You have poo pooed him then used him.
http://www.biography.ms/Assault_rifle.html
I am not happy with his site as it seems to slag people off
The low training time for US soldiers is often blamed on the known inability of the soldiers to control their fire, (the US regular force basic training is 8 weeks, the Canadian reserve force basic training is 12 weeks.)
the Avtomat was one of the best rifles of World War I.
The U.S. M1 carbine suffered because its cartridge was only marginally more powerful than pistol cartridges of the time. It was sufficiently better than the 1911A1 service pistol but not powerful enough to warrant replacing the millions of M1 Garand rifles already in service.
Statistical studies of real battles performed by the U.S. Army indicated that combat beyond 200 yards is rare.
Having read it I can see were you got the 200m criteria from. But I think their comment is based on false information, as I understand it the research put the range at 300m for individual shooting in battle. The site seems to be a small encyclopaedia and draws/links on information from Anthony G Williams but contradicts him as well.
The Institute for Research on Small Arms in International Security states the following:
"ASSAULT RIFLE: This term was coined during World War II. It is a
translation of the German “Sturmgewehr.” Two key
characteristics that identify “assault rifles” are
full automatic fire and detachable magazines with
a capacity of 20 or more cartridges.
This term would also include LMGs so is far to vague to be used.
These weapons were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire.
Only untrained civilians or the first burst in a Close Quarter Battle engagement would be a roughly aimed burst. Any thing over 25m and you are wasting ammo and putting your life at risk. The initial burst in CQB is to give you time to get to cover not kill the enemy, Aimed shots kill the enemy and head shots are like rocking horse rose fertiliser. At longer ranges single shots or aimed short burst will be used to keep the enemy heads down. The US has adopted the 3 round burst to improve accuracy, the UK uses the double tap. At the time of the 5.56 trials in the late 70s the use of flashet rounds was also looked at. It would be worth looking at what causes casualties in combat, you will probably find it is artillery and not SAA. You use your rifle to pin them and let you move, this is called “winning he fire fight”. So that you’re big gun can blow them to shit.
While some assault rifles offer an option of semiautomatic fire (i.e., single-shot), all true assault rifles fire at least fully automatic."
This part I do not understand at all, it seems to contradict itself, or am I reading it wrong?
"Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat. "
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/assault%20rifle
I think it would be best to ignore this.
Since some have stated that the M1/2 Carbines are not AR’s because of their weaker round, I contend that this does not disqualify them as being AR’s circa WWII:
This is really the crux of our argument. The M2 could have been an AR if its round had been better. But it suffered from the design requirements to replace the pistol, which it did very successfully, but it could not replace the rifle because of its low powered round, which it needed to do to be an AR.
Assault rifles cause injuries more often than death. Doctrines vary concerning this effect. The U.S. military states that this is an intentional goal.
This has been a red herring for some time. When it was found that the .223 was not as good as was advertised (it was based on a rodent killer) an excuse had to be found or they would all look like fools in front of other NATO counties who they had forced to change to 7.62 instead of the better 7mm. It is the old emperors new cloths trick.
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Assault_rifle
This seems to be a copy of an earlier site.
Clearly, the definition of an AR varies, even from one government or military organization to another! I have contended, and continue to contend, that because the M1 Carbine (and certainly the M2) meet not only a generalized definituion of an AR, and because they meet the larger number of characteristics of such weapons by most varying definitions, that they are indeed AR’s, at least when used in such a role, because they were well suited for that task in the era in which they were designed.
You could also say the same for LMGs, but the difference is that AR fire intermediate power rounds and most importantly are individual weapons of infantry soldiers. The M2 was not issued to the rifleman the garrand was. If the M2 had performed well in the garrand role it would have replaced it post war or the US would have moved to an intermediate round instead of taking 20 year and claming that rifleman needed a more powerful round as they did with the 7mm.
