Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Enough Nonsense; What is an "Assault Rifle"?" video.

To me, the definition is fundamentally flawed. It would be better to define three classes of RIFLE ammunitions. Defined by the energy at the muzzle, with a reasonably sized barrel. 1) under 2200 joules (7.92mm Kurz, 5.56 NATO, 7.62X39... practically the almost totality of the intermediate cartridges effectively adopted). They are optimal for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, unsuited for GPMG. 2) from 2200 to 3000 joules (all the classic 6.5mm service rounds, 30-30, .30 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 LICC...). They are decent for individual automatic fire, optimal for SAW, decent for GPMG. 3) over 3000 joules (7.92mm Mauser, .303 British, 30-06, 7.62 NATO, .277 Fury, 6.5mm Creedmoor...). They are unsuited for individual automatic fire, decent for SAW, optimal for GPMG.
77
@PrezVeto Infact storming a position is not watering it.
8
@doublepiedavid8908 Despite having been made specifically for a carbine, and descending from a class of rifle ammo (those for the Winchester Model 1907) it's normally considered more akin to a pistol round. 7.5 FK, that's specifically a semiauto pistol cartridge, is more powerful than .30 Carbine for the same barrel length. It's not an unicum. Much of the classic cartridges of lever action rifles are less powerful than a modern .357 Mag.
5
@heycidskyja4668 Fact is that there were practically two classes of service cartridges at the time. The "7-8mm, over 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (30-06, 8mm Mauser, .303 British, 7.62X54r...) and the "6.5mm, from 2200 to 3000 joules energy at the muzzle" (Carcano, Arisaka and so on). Modern service "intermediate" cartridges are below 2200 joules power, so it wouldn't be a problem, but practically all the cartridges proposed to solve the 5.56-7.62 dualism belong to the old "6.5mm 2200-3000 joules" category. So the problem. Are, IE, 6.8 SPC, or 6.5 Grendel, intermediate cartridges? They are made to be shot from an AR15 platform. But, power wise, they are in the "old service 6.5 rounds" category.
3
@heycidskyja4668 The power defines the purpose. Hence, every time a cartridge like the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.8 SPC, the .270 British, etc, is proposed as service cartridge, you see the debate "it's an intermediate cartridge / it's not an intermediate cartridge".
3
@heycidskyja4668 To you. To others they aren't. Hence the problem.
3
@heycidskyja4668 They fit what definition of intermediate cartridge if they are in the same energy ballpark of full power cartridges? Other sources describe them as not intermediate cartridges. Hence the problem. Other than your evident comprehension ones.
3
@buckleyjteams It has to be said that, while the definition of "assault rifle" came with the first of them to be adopted, that of "battle rifle" is quite recent. It had ben coined in the '80s, along with "scout rifle" and some other. It somewhat stuck, but it's not strictly a military term.
2
@GigAnonymous That was Automatic Rifle. Since there weren't other kinds of automatic rifles, there wasn't need of a specific term for the full blow ammo ones.
2
The first group to apply the "Assault rifle" label to semi auto rifles wasn't politicians, it was advertisers trying to sell "military style" rifles to the public. Gun Digest even had a series called the "Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" which lumped them all in together, further confusing the terms. Gun companies used the terminology also (IE Intratec advertised the TEC-9 as an "assault pistol")
2
@MrBahjatt Practically all the classic 6.5mm (Carcano, Mannlicher Schonauer, 6.5X53r) are in the second category, and almost all the ammo proposed to end the 7.62-5.56 NATO dichotomy. Historically Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov designed it as he was impressed by the firepower provided by the Chauchat. He wanted the same firepower, but with better mobility.
2
@DavidNefelimSlayer It has to be noted that The 7.92mm Kurz had been the first intermediate round to be adopted, but not the first to be conceived that way precisely to be controllable in full auto for a man standing with a rifle-weight weapon. The first one had probably been the 8X35mm Ribeyrolles, of the Ribeyrolles 1918 automatic carbine. That had not been adopted only due to the end of WWI. Then the 7.35X32mm of the Terni 1921 rifle, obtained shortening the 6.5X52mm Carcano cartridge. Already Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov was thinking of a proprietary intermediate cartridge for the Fedorov Avtomat, but reverted on the 6.5 Arisaka due to availability.
2
@blackore64 The problem with the Sturmgewehr 57 is not that it doesn't fit into the "assault rifle" term. It's that it doesn't fit into the "battle rifle" either. Due to it's weight, it's more similar to an automatic rifle, like the BAR or the Breda PG. Adopting it, the Swiss were thinking of a pretty static defensive war, where they would have shot on the invaders form prepared positions, possibly having the high ground, so weight was not that important, while accuracy was.
1
@ozfifer7392 For example, the class under 2200 joules can be defined "Lightweight Rifle Cartridges", or LRC. The 2200-3000 joules class "Medium rifle cartridges", or MRC. The over 3000 joules class "Full Power Rifle Cartridges" or FPRC. There are already definitions for the infantry rifles that use the first and last class of ammo (Assault rifle and Battle rifle), we only need a term for the rifles that uses the MRC, for example "Squad Rifle" (that doesn't make less sense than the other two definitions).
1
@EnjoyCocaColaLight It's unsuited for individual automatic fire.
1