I am always flabbergasted by the lies, falsehoods, and misinformation spread by the White House, politicians, media, and public figures in general. Even when conservative pundits get it wrong, no one corrects them or the record. Joseph Goebbels said, “Tell the masses a lie often enough and for long enough, and sooner or later, they will all believe it.” That is certainly becoming the case when it comes to our Second Amendment.
When Biden said, “The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.” I was outraged that we did not scream Liar! at the top of our collective lungs. After all, the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not attempt to ban ANY gun. You could buy a machine gun in most hardware stores, so long as the special tax was paid (for manufacture or transfer). Today, you can still own a canon, tank, or aircraft carrier if you can afford it and the $200 tax stamp. So, let’s look at the “assault rifle” conundrum by examining some history and the truth.
Forgotten History
The dictionary defines assault as; “To make a physical attack on or carry out a military attack or raid on an enemy position.” Now, I don’t know about you, but I have never seen a rifle or any object get up and assault a convenience store on its own. But to really understand what an “assault rifle” might be we must go back a few centuries and study how infantry warfare worked in the 1600s, 1700s, and early 1800s.
Firearms were smoothbore muskets. Accuracy was extremely limited. Additionally, those firearms were primarily muzzle-loading flintlocks that were slow to load. To compensate for those inadequacies, the military strategy of the day was to line troops up in three ranks about 50–100 yards away from the enemy. On command, the first line would fire. Then, the second rank would step forward and fire. Finally, the third line would step forward and fire.
This strategy maximized the firepower of the unit, kind of like a big shotgun. Because of the lack of accuracy, it was hoped that the massed fire would at least hit some of the enemy troops. To paraphrase a famous British Army Colonel of the day, “No man was ever killed at 200 yards, by the person who aimed at him.” And when they attacked, it was the bayonet attached to their muskets that did the assaulting. I guess that’s why California hates bayonet lugs so much.
With the advent of rifled firearms, massed fire tactics and tight formations began to disappear. With improved accuracy, it was no longer practical for soldiers to fire at each other while standing in the open. Of course, the military leaders — who weren’t being shot at — were the last to realize that massed fire tactics were obsolete. The final use of massed formations didn’t occur until the machine guns of World War I made it obvious that it was a bad idea.
The Machine Gun
In 1890, an Italian, Amerigo Cei-Rigotti invented the first rifle that was capable of single shot or burst fire from a detachable magazine. While this was the first rifle of its type, it wasn’t very reliable and was never adopted by anyone. The next development was the Fedorov Avtomat from Russia in 1916. This firearm was similar to the Cei-Rigotti but used a smaller cartridge than a rifle and was not produced in great numbers.
When World War I started, the French introduced a light machine gun (capable of both single and automatic firing) called the Chauchat that could be carried and fired by one man. It was notoriously unreliable. In fact, it has the dubious distinction of being dubbed “worst machine gun ever”. Later in the war, U.S. troops were supplied with John Browning’s M1918 Automatic Rifle. Though introduced late in the war, it was very effective. There were also automatic weapons designed during and after World War I, that used pistol ammunition. The most famous of which was the Thompson submachine gun.
Assault Rifle
After World War I, some nations experimented with a new intermediate cartridge and a suitable weapon to fire it. Although many nations tried, the major development took place in Germany. The Germans observed that most infantry combat happened at less than 400 yards, and a small group of soldiers could easily overcome a larger group of soldiers, provided they had superior firepower. Their solution, the 7.92x33mm “Kurz” (German for “short”), finalized in 1938.
Interestingly, Adolf Hitler was opposed to the new intermediate cartridge and demanded more submachine guns be built. German armament secretly kept working on the new firearm. To avoid suspicion, they christened the weapon the MP 43 (Machine Pistol 43). In July 1944, Hitler met with generals on the Eastern Front and asked them what they needed. One general said, “We want more of those new rifles!” When a confused Hitler asked, “What new rifles?” The jig was up.
Some thought they would be executed for disobeying Hitler’s direct orders, but once Hitler test-fired the weapon, he was impressed and enthusiastically gave it the name Sturmgewehr, which is German for “Storm (Assault) Rifle” (“Storm” as in storming a castle or assaulting a castle). The StG 44 is generally accepted as the world’s first and only successful mass produced rifle named an “Assault Rifle.” This is where the term “Assault Rifle” originated.
Now you know the rest of the story…
It was an encounter with a StG 44 that prompted a Russian tank mechanic named Mikhail Kalashnikov to invent his own assault rifle. Later, Kalashnikov’s design would become one of the most famous firearm designs of all time, the Avtomat Kalashnikova or Kalashnikov’s Automatic AK-47.
AR-15
Meanwhile, back in the good old US of A in around 1948, an official U.S. Army study centered on the effects of combat on men. The study claimed that during World War II, 75% of U.S. soldiers who were engaged in combat never fired their weapon directly at an enemy — troops with automatic weapons were more likely to fire at them. Additionally, it revealed that most infantry combat occurred at close ranges, and the side with the most firepower won most engagements. Duh!
All these studies indicated that infantry soldiers should be provided with automatic weapons. However, that would mean soldiers would need to carry more ammunition. The size and weight of the ammunition would have to be reduced to avoid overburdening the soldiers.
To solve the problem, the Aberdeen Proving Ground facility was tasked with researching the effects of smaller calibers. Somehow, it concluded that a .223 caliber (5.56mm) bullet moving at high velocity had the same effects as larger rifle rounds in combat. On what planet this could be possible, I really don’t know.
In 1954, a division of Fairchild Aviation called ‘ArmaLite’ was formed with only nine employees. However, one of those employees was the talented designer, Eugene Stoner. It produced an innovative rifle called the AR-10 which had several new features including a direct impingement, gas-operated action without a piston. The design was lighter and easier to keep pointed on target during full auto. Other features included a straight-line stock, carrying handle, and hinged receiver — all constructed of aluminum alloy.
Meanwhile, the Aberdeen Proving Ground finalized the design for a .223 bullet capable of penetrating a standard U.S. steel helmet from 500 yards. The general in charge personally asked Armalite to design a weapon for the 5.56 mm cartridge. The result was a scaled-down AR-10 model called the AR-15. In case you didn’t know, AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not “Assault Rifle.”
USAF General, Curtis LeMay, witnessed a demonstration of the AR-15 in 1960 and requested an order of 80,000 units for the Air Force. At that time, the U.S. military was using the M14 rifle which fires a 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. President John F. Kennedy stopped the AR-15 request. He felt having two different calibers within the military was not logistically practical. Secretary of Defense McNamara, pushing the U.S. military to cut costs, was forced to decide whether to stick with the M14 or go with the glowing reports from Vietnam about the new AR-15.
He ordered tests between the M14, AR-15, and AK-47. The test results showed that the existing M14 was the winner, but the reports also indicated a bias to favor the M14. In the end, McNamara decided the AR-15 could serve the needs of all branches of the U.S. military. The U.S. Army tried to resist the change and asked for a few improvements.
- Add a chrome lining to the barrel and chamber, to resist corrosion
- Add a forward assist to push the bolt into battery
- Cleaning kits
To cut costs, McNamara insisted that the design be self-cleaning and need no maintenance. The first versions of the rifle were released without cleaning kits or chrome lining. Colt produced two versions —an Air Force version called the M16, with no forward-assist and another version, called the XM16E1, with the forward assist for the other military branches. Renamed the M16A1 by the U.S. Army it was sent to U.S. troops in Vietnam, in 1965.
Almost immediately, reports of jamming and malfunctions began to emerge. In several cases, dead U.S. troops were found with jammed rifles. A Congressional investigation determined the propellant caused residue and because the rifle had no chrome lining or cleaning kit, that residue in the moist conditions of Vietnam caused pitting in the chamber that in turn caused jamming.
The U.S. military quickly added chrome lining and a buffer system to reduce the firing rate to 650 rpm. Cleaning kits and a comic book with cleaning instructions were also issued. However, the early reliability issues gave this rifle a bad reputation that continued to dog the M16 for years afterward.
Now you know how we wound up with the worst military weapon imaginable, chosen by a politician and a bureaucrat and made on the cheap. As for the cartridge, it’s not even legal to hunt deer with it in most states… And, have you noticed that we have not won a war since its adoption in 1964?
Final Thoughts
According to Uncle Adolf, to be a Sturmgewehr it needs to be fully automatic. Unless you have a class three license, you have a semi-automatic which, by definition, is not an assault anything. Aside from that, how can a tool assert a will of its own? If they could, we would have assault spoons, forks, shovels, hammers, gas-powered cars, toothbrushes, underwear, stoves, and hats. Where would it end?
Maybe… it’s not the object! Maybe, it’s the person using it.
One more thing… The U.S. Military nor any manufacturer in the firearms industry ever used the word ‘assault’ to name a personal weapon. It is a semi-automatic firearm that cannot do anything on its own.
Assault rifle? How many times have you heard that term incorrectly used? Share your answers and definition of an “assault rifle” in the comment section.