TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

WTR wrote:Google .....what makes an assault rifle

Looks like the same results. Could you provide links to the sites you are referring to specifically?

jmra wrote:

WTR wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

WTR wrote:Most of the ARs shown here would be considered "assault" rifles if they had a bayonet attachment.

Seriously?

Google it..... even has a link from your post.

This is the first result I got from google:
"The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[16] In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be capable of selective fire.
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle.
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example:

Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.[17]
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.
Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Semi-auto rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.
Selective fire rifles like the Fedorov Avtomat which in hindsight could be classified as prototypical assault rifles. However, 6.5x50mm Arisaka is still very much a full-powered rifle cartridge, only slightly weaker than 7.62x51mm NATO.
History"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Skiprr wrote:

WTR wrote:Most of the ARs shown here would be considered "assault" rifles if they had a bayonet attachment.

Seriously?

jason812 wrote:Are my model 70's battle rifles? If so is it only the 06 and not the 243 or 270?

cmgee67 wrote:I do not understand why people refer to their Ar platform rifles as their "battle rifles". First of all if an individual is not enlisted or an LEO and in an actual conflict then the rifle is not a battle rifle. It is simply a defensive rifle or a hunting rifle or a range rifle. The rifle gets the name associated with that best defines its use/uses. Sorry gents and ladies I had to rant a little bit it just has been on my nerves. That is all. CARRY ON