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.
“Unless you have a class three license,…” There is no such thing as a class three license for individuals to own a machine gun. To own a machine gun requires an individual to fill out an application and pay $200 tax on each class three weapon. Dealers also pay an additional fee (Special Occupation Tax or SOT) to be able to sell and transfer Class 3 items. These can include machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and destructive devices. It’s a very easy process, but you’ll need patience for the application to be processed. Current wait times can be up to a year. Oh, and machine guns now cost tens of thousands of dollars each.
Just to clear up a minor point – Switch to Ball powder from Stick powder was to increase the velocity of the 5.56 bullets. The Military selected a Ball powder that actually burned slightly slower than the Stick powder, so the residual gas pressure level at the gas port was higher than it was when using the Stick powder. That is caused the initial issues with jamming. Anyone building an AR15 style firearm now knows that using a pistol versus a carbine versus a rifle length gas tube/system has to also adjust the buffer system to compensate for the various gas pressure level at the gas port.
Because the Ball powder also created a larger muzzle flash, the Military added the Calcium Carbonate to reduce the muzzle flash. Early AR15s, using a 1:12 twist rate, barely stabilized that early 5,56 ammo. Changing (early on) to a 1:10 twist helped to stabilize the bullet, but without the tumbling, the 5.56 lost much of its’ effectiveness. Too bad those lessons had to be learned the hard way.
Great article. Is there any way to get it out to the less informed (ie; the social platform with the lower case “f”) . Opponents to the Second Amendment are quick to point out that, when it was written, there were only muzzle loaders. What they don’t consider is–the military only had muzzle loaders, too. The availability of semi-automatic weapons to the public can be seen keeping the playing field level.
That was an outstanding article. I don’t have anything to add that the respondents to the article haven’t already pointed out.
One of my frustrations with the media and the public that consumes their output is that with few exceptions we only monitor the news that aligns with our beliefs. I’m most certainly guilty of that. I watched CNN interview one of the supposed experts on firearms following a mass shooting state how powerful the AR-15 round was and how much damage it could do. That resulted in shouting at the TV and marching out of the room frustrated about how many people that had no background with firearms were now believing this misinformation with no hope of ever encountering information that challenged that notion.
As one of the previous commenters pointed out, it’s not a firearm issue. It’s a mental health issue in a society that has polarized.
A Rifle never assaulted anyone it only causes damage to targets or kills people or animals when a human interacts with it by aiming it at said object and physically pulling the trigger with intention to fire the weapon!!
I was issued an M16 as well as the later upgrades. I even visited the manufacturing plant where the M16A2 was made. I never had a problem with an M16.
It was reliable and accurate. It was also easy to take mauntain. I used an M-16 in the early 1980s – 1994. So, perhaps it was a better version of the initial weapon used in Vietnam.
It’s just like gun violence? People violence is actuality. I have owned some of my guns for sixty years and none have turned violent! All animals kill each other. Humans are no different. However some could be reduced by fixing the society that has been created.
Oops! In rereading my just sent post I realize that I left out what HR designate. HR for all long guns designed for Hunting.
Thanks for a well written article. It comes to mind that we need a new nomenclature for all Armalite style long guns. My suggestions are DC, HR and TR.
DC would stand for Defensive Carbine as in Defensive Carbine 10 or 15, etc. And would be used for long guns with 16″ barrels. Then HR would stand for long guns with barrels of 18″ or longer. The TR designation would then be used for long guns designed for Target shooting. Of course, all long guns could still be used for defensive purposes as the 2nd Ammendment was written in orderto guarantee as a Human Right. Meant to secure forever the Human Right for defense against any foe both foreign and domestic.
I was in the RVN early in1966, assigned to the 1st Air Cav and had no complaints with the M16. My issue weapon was a .45 pistol that was so loose it out of the holster. The Cav was still settling in, so I had to wait about a week before I even got the pistol. When I signed for it I shook the empty Colt in the supply sergeant’s face and asked “Would fire this?” His answer was they are all like that. A couple days later he called me to ask if I’d like to have a “new” M16. He explained that it was turned in by a patrol that found it in a VC bunker. Apparently it did not appear on his firearms inventory. I carried that M16 and the rattling 45 for the tour. Junior officers didn’t have any priority in those early days. I kept it clean & dry and it always answered my call. Since then I’ve looked for one which I finally found a bout 10 years ago – a Colt Sporter that has been fun to shoot.
Personally, I knew the whole story, I trained and packed a M1 Garand from 1959 until I made E6 SSGT and my TO&E weapon was a US M1911 pistol and KBar knife. So it is kinda preaching to the choir! One point about never winning a war with the M16 variants, sort of rang an iconic bell with me, I actually had a 12ga pump, a 1911 pistol, an M1 30 Carbine AND a M16 at my disposal in Vietnam, which I never used the SG and 1911 worked just fine for me! Now it appears that the Army wants something a bit more substantial as a Military Rifle, and still searching for the M1 replacement as we speak!
To address the “Assault Rifle” misnomer, we have let a military weapon, be selectively used by civilians to murder civilians. We have let the problem become a political issue, and professional politicians, just by their very nature, will use it a a tug of war play toy, they will never find an answer to stop the civilian murders! It is at this point, more of a real mental health issue than a random expedition in the middle of the night, by rogue rifles who leave the confines of their safes and go to murder civilians in covert groups, as portrayed by the professional politicians!
HA HA Good article Ed ! Indeed a certain crowd of boobie brained lay-a-bouts class anything that shoots as an assault weapon and we all know what those are .
Uncle worked at COLT on the original AR15/M16 program, (1960’s), as a Manufacturing Engineer. Why Stoner didn’t Chrome the barrel was because the original 223 cartridges used Stick powder, without any Calcium Carbonate to reduce the muzzle flash. Military switched to Ball Powder and raised the rate of fire from ~600 rpm to ~1,000 rpm. Mr. Stoner’s original design ran at ~600 rpm just fine. At ~1,000 rpm, the action couldn’t properly cycle, and required serious re design to keep from jamming. Military then added the Calcium Carbonate to reduce the huge muzzle flash created by the switch to Ball Powder. Testing done in relatively dry US bases didn’t show any issues with the addition of the Calcium Carbonate. In a wet environment like Southwest Asia, the residual (wet) Calcium salts would quickly rust any steel that was exposed to it. Note – All of the Cleaning Kits originally shipped by COLT with those first M16s were stored in an ARMY base stateside.
Thanks for the history lesson Ed. I see from the coments that this has stirred the hornets nest. 2nd Amendment rights appear to be doomed. Interesting to note that Canada under British Commonwealth rule does not have a 2nd amendment feature and the result was confiscation of all non hunting type guns.
The biggest reason for the failure of the M16 was Stoner’s original design used ammo loaded with IMR 4475 propellant. It was never designed to shoot ball powder but the Army failed to consider that in any of the testing, all of which was done with the IMR 4475 propellant, which was a cleaner burning propellant than what was previously used by the military. The Army had decided that this weapon should not need to be cleaned and never even ordered gun cleaning kits on the basis of the testing with Stoner’s designs.
Then, almost as an afterthought, the Army decided they wanted a faster burning, more powerful propellant for reaching out to longer range targets, and since they had an abundance of ball powder, well, that is what they would use. They were ignoring the fact that Stoner’s design was much cleaner burning than any ball powder and the decision to forgo cleaning kits was based on the original propellant. This decision was made without anyone testing the efficacy of changes before the weapons were delivered into the hands of soldiers in the field and this change of propellant is the cause of fouling in that weapon.
In my mind, the people who made that decision and failed to test whether it was a viable or even reasonable change, should have been charged with the wrongful death of all of the soldiers who died breaking their weapon down in the face of enemy fire, at minimum. I think a firing squad would have been appropriate because the changes they instituted killed a lot of good men.
If the propellant had not been changed, there probably would not have been a need to install a chrome plated chamber. The testing done before the Army changed the ammo did not show a need for that. It was only after the powder was changed that fouling became that much of an issue. The fouling problem was just one reason I was almost ecstatic when I was issued a 1911 as my weapon when I arrived at my new unit in country. I had known too many GIs who did not like the M16A1 at all when I was stateside.
As a matter of history, Robert McNamara had been an executive at Ford before becoming Secretary of Defense. He was the brain behind changing the Thunderbird from a 2 seater to a 4 seater, taking it out of competition with the Corvette That, and few other colossal mistakes almost caused Ford to fail, but a young exec named Lee Iaccoca brought about the one vehicle that saved Ford. He was on the cover of Time Magazine in 1964 or ’65, as the Man who saved Ford Motor Company. Also on that cover was a little car Ford called the Mustang; you many have heard of it.
You might want to check out some basic physics to find out why a smaller caliber moving at a faster speed is more lethal than a larger caliber moving slowly.
As I understand it; The 2A was written for “the people” to DEFEND against a tyrannical government. Then wouldn’t anything “the people” use to DEFEND against a tyrannical government be more accurately described as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON? Same thing for DEFENDING ourselves from a personal attack by anyone, also still be referred to as a DEFENSIVE WEAPON? Unfortunately even a DEFENSIVE WEAPON will not do the work by itself, it must be manipulated by a person, to DEFEND themselves. Maybe we should start calling them DW-15’s, and put the whole assault weapon (AR) narrative on the DEFENSIVE? I know this kind of sounds like a wise “A” response, but when I confront people with the DEFENSIVE WEAPON argument, it does seem to get them to think, instead of just repeating the assault weapon blah, blah, blah. Try it. The next time someone starts the assault weapon theme on you, just reply: “That it doesn’t apply to me, because I only own DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.” Have fun.
Finally, a gun writer with enough guts to say that the M16 and 5.56 cartridge suck as battlefield weapons.
I’ve said this for decades.
BTW, when the British Army stormed up Breed’s Hill in 1775, they carried the Brown Bess musket during the assault. I guess these were “Assault Muskets” or “AM”s!
We all know that there is no such there such thing as an “assault rifle”. Even the director of the ATF cannot provide a definition of the term. The government wants us all to be defenseless, and submit to tyranny. The ATF acted on it’s own to make it more difficult to accurately aim a firearm by outlawing pistol braces, and by classifying a rifle or shotgun as “tactical” just because it has a pistol grip. All these devices were designed to make it easier, and therefore safer, to use a firearm. Look at the statistics in cities like Chicago, New York, and others where good citizens are unable to defend themselves. Our borders are open, and illegal aliens have more access to illicit drugs and firearms than law abiding Americans.We the people demand the right to protect ourselves. We the people have the right to live and be governed as we choose. If the American people do not wake up, America as we have known it will soon be a thing of the past.
Another Damning decision on The Army’s part, was to use Ball powder instead of the Stick powder developed for the 5.56mm round!
Soap Box time! Every single law restricting firearms is unconstitutional, PERIOD!!!! Assault Riles do not exist! The media and the stupid politicians invented a scary term to facilitate control of the people of this country!
The only law against homicide that really has had any real effect on the Human Psyche was from Mount Sinai. THOU SHALL NOT KILL. If that one is ignored, ANY law written by man will be as well.
Well written article with sound info on the ignorance of the libs to the “facts” of the development of semi auto rifles.
The truth is that they don’t care about the truth. They have their agenda, and that’s to disarm the general public and deny them their 2nd amendment right to bear arms and defend themselves from other liberals.
Alot depends on the location where you live and the local politics.
I live in Illinois where the Governor signed into legislation A “Assault Weapons Ban and large capacity ban. I won’t get into the details of the bill because it is available in all of it’s glory.
This is all a figment of JB Pritzker in his infinite wisdom and knee jerk reaction to the Highland Park, Illinois shooting during a 4th of July parade
The shooter was or is a mentally unstable and should never have had a rifle or any weapon for that matter!
No doubt that it was a tragedy that left it’s mark on everyone.
To make my point, I was no where near Highland Park and neithe was any of my legally owned firearms. BUT somehow it is my fault and I am to be penalized and treated like a criminal?
I abide by EVERY State , Federal and local laws.I have an FFL and I am NOT a Dealer, just a collector. Now I am required to “register” any gun that I own as spelled out by the new law along with any Rifle magazine of 10 rounds capacity, any handgun of more than 115 round capacity and their magazines/ To the Illinois State Police by Jan 1, 2024.
What is to be the next step????
At the time of the ratification of the second amendment, weren’t ALL military weapons covered by it? I mean, if the then-current technology of smoothbore muskets were OK for ordinary citizens to own, would not the now-current technology firearms also be OK for ordinary citizens to own?
Of course, I could be wrong, but weren’t even cannons legally owned by private citizens without restrictions like tax stamps, etc?
Even the National Firearms Act of 1934 was technically an “infringement” on our Second Amendment rights. It is just absurd how these lib, lefties, keep thinking new laws and gun bans will make any difference to criminals. How can they not see that all it does is hurt the people who follow the laws and don’t go about randomly killing other people.