Talk:Assault rifle

The SturmGewehr being the first assault rifle. (Sorry if this is already a topic)

I read on the page for the SturmGewehr page that it was the first modern assault rifle, I'm just saying that that should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benners88 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead section.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've recently read about the Fedorov Avtomat. Isn't that technically the first assault rifle? I noticed it being mentioned above, but I don't get what the conclusion is. Is it or is it not, and why? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Fedorov Avtomat doesn't fit the definition of assault rifle since it was chambered for the Japanese 6.5mm Arisaka "full power" rifle cartridge, and not an intermediate cartridge. Thomas.W ^talk 13:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You can argue that the first "assault rifle" appeared in California in recent decades, because it's the first time there was a legal definition of what "assault rifle" actually meant. Otherwise, just what do we mean by the term? Invented? In service? In bulk service? With the performance of a military rifle? As there aren't many of such (really just the AK47 / AKM in full calibre, and that's a short intermediate cartridge) as it's hard to control, most are about .23 calibre rather than .303. But how small can it go and still be a rifle, rather than a sub-machine gun?

The Avtomat has the problem that it's using a pretty useless cartridge, giving it the performance of a machine pistol. Nor can it use anything more powerful, owing to the overheating problem. Mostly though, it's just the limited numbers made - 100× as many Sturmgewehr than Avtomat.

I would disagree Thomas' point that the Avtomat cartridge is too large, as the 6.5 Arisaka cartridge is so low powered, even though it's a large case. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's the case and the weight that is the main difference between a rifle cartridge and an intermediate cartridge, not the power. A smaller and lighter case means that the soldier can carry more rounds (for the same weight), which he'll need if he is to have any practical use for an automatic weapon... Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

cartridge power is important because it enables better handling of automatic fire.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

fully automatic vs selective fire

I noticed an incorrect bit stating that assault rifles are always fully automatic capable. The m16 and m4 have instead used 3 round burst instead of automatic. A better term would be selective fire, which is what is linked to anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.122.184.152 (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The intro sentence was originally written as...

"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

The "fully automatic" term was added later. Therefore, I do not have a problem with removing the term. As I also find it somewhat redundant and technically incorrect (as stated above).--RAF910 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Technical definition versus English language definition

Language evolves over time. All the sources saying an assault rifle has to be select fire are older than the people citing them. Meanwhile modern, current, mainstream, sources do not include the requirement for automatic in their definition - such as Meriam webster "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.", and dictionary.com includes a secondary definition "a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire." President Obama used this definition in his recent address.

Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, in the English language, the term 'assault rifle' has expanded to include the 'technically incorrect' of civilian semi-automatic rifles derived from military assault rifles. This usage of the term warrants mention in the first paragraph, if only to explain the technical inaccuracy of its usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4403:2A10:30A5:345E:D677:269 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right. The NRA doesn't have a monopoly on defining firearms-related terms. One of the sources used is the Encyclopedia Britannica, says "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action and of the capacity to fire high-performance military ammunition." So even the article's own sources contradict the narrow definition that some editors insist upon. Felsic2 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 11th commandment written by... was it moses on god's command wasn't "The definition of an assault rifle is bla bla bla". So, ever since that enormous oversight (who is this god person anyway?) I don't really know where an authoritative definition of "assault rifle" would come from. Take, for instance, the huge argument about which was the first "assault rifle". With some rifles having burst but not full auto some people just say select fire, but the semi auto only M27 seems to prove that even that is not a hard requirement which isn't a particularly shocking revelation. In the end, different experts probably have different definitions. It would be deceptive to say or imply that there is any one set in stone definition or that what does and does not fall into the assault rifle category, or that it is not subject to debate. Some editors might try to use original research on this page to argue that one definition is the one true definition or another definition is the one true definition or that there exists one true definition. I haven't looked into it, but presumably all that can be said is that the first "assault rifle" is subject to debate. Could it have been, for instance, the m1 carbine? The Vollmer M35? Where is the exact line between smg and aw ammunition? etc.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the definition does not require a gun to be selective fire to be an assault rifle. The term is very commonly used for any semi-automatic rifle of a military design or origin.--Dmol (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That's one part of it, yes. But the thing is, everything about the AR definition is subjective. An AR is a rifle that fires an "intermediate" round. A round is made up of the case, the propellant/charge, the bullet and the primer. It's obviously not the primer. Some famous examples use the bullet from an 8mm traditional rifle round, so it's not the bullet. So the variables you're looking at on the "a girl walks into a bear's house and finds three bowls of porridge, one too hot, one too cold, and one just right, and she also finds one round that's too "small", one round that's too "big", and what round's "just right"". The only levers you can change to change a round that's too big, say, 7.62x51, or 8mm mauser rifle to one that's "just right" are the size of the case and the grains of propellant. For instance, take the ww2 M1 carbine round. Where does it fall? Is it too small? Is it just right? Who can you ask to give you a definitive answer? Nobody. It's subjective. Was the ww2 M1 carbine an assault rifle? Who can you ask to give you a definitive answer? Nobody? Was the M2? It's subjective.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article...The article very specifically defines what is and what is not an assault rifle. Also, the article already has the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section. Which already explains the differences between the Technical definition versus Political definition.--RAF910 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

So who's to say if .30 carbine is a smg/pistol cartridge or "intermediate"? 5.45x39mm? Is the m27 iar an "assault weapon"? Who's to say? Who draws the line that distinguishes what is and isn't an AR? I know that the version in the article now was reached simply by an editor using various references they personally agreed with ignoring the references they disagreed with.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• The definition used in the article is the standard technical/military definition, in common use throughout the world. People can have whatever opinion they want about anything, including about what an "assault rifle" is or isn't, but Wikipedia isn't a politically correct "encyclopaedia" aimed at pleasing people in the US who feel that all guns of all kinds are eeevil, and repeatedly try to widen the definition of "assault rifle" to include everything from a BB-gun to a hunting rifle so that they seem to be eeevil too, but an uncensored international English language encyclopaedia with information that is correct, whether some people like it or not. Meaning that the only definition of "assault rifle" that belongs in this article is the technically correct one, that is the one that is in the article now. Period. Thomas.W ^talk 11:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The definitions of words are not set in stone, as an earlier poster said. Meanings and usage change. The common definition of "assault rifle", including the one at the Encyclopedia Britannica, includes weapons that are available with either semi-automatic or select-fire actions. While you seem to be attacking people, including editors, for using the term it's used even by a policeman who was previously in active service in Iraq.[1] Don't use broad brushes and outlandish claims to tar others over a simple content dispute. All commonly used definitions of the term should be included. Felsic2 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use new terms or definitions until they're so thoroughly established that they're mainstream, not fringe. The very wide definition of assault rifle that you seem to promote is mainly used in the US, and only used by a limited segment of the population, and thus doesn't belong here. Thomas.W ^talk 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that the reference to some semi-automatic rilfes as "assault rifles" is a violation of WP:FRINGE? Or is there a different policy you're talking about when you discuss what "Wikipedia doesn't" do? Felsic2 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Referring to semi-automatic rifles as 'assault rifles' is fringe in the sense that it doesn't fit the established, mainstream, definition of 'assault rifle'. And as long as it isn't the mainstream definition, i.e. the internationally by far most widely used definition, it doesn't belong in the article. And please don't make the common mistake of confusing 'assault rifle' with 'assault weapon', a US legal term for firearms with certain features that has nothing whatsoever to do with this article... Thomas.W ^talk 11:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The right way to do it would simply be to have a sentence, paragraph, or section devoted to the civilian usage of the term. How about "In civilian usage, 'assault rifle' may also refer to semi-automatic rifles of similar construction". Or, "Assault rifles are sold for the civilian market with semi-automatic actions". Felsic2 (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It would definitely not be "the right way to do it". We use the correct definition of the term, period. And assault rifles are definitely not sold with semi-automatic actions on the civilian market, semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles but aren't assault rifles (since they're semi-automatic only) are sold on the civilian market, though. And stop trying to sneak biased anti-gun terminology into articles here. Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The very first source in the article, Encylopedia Britannica, says so.[2]. Is it wrong?

Please don't smear me with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. There's no place for that here. Felsic2 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Encyclopaedia Britannica is partly user generated, and in many cases of dubious value as a source. And the rest of your post is just plain silly, I haven't made any personal attack, and never do, all I did was ask you to stop your repeated attempts to change the definition of assault rifle away from the long-standing technically correct definition that is used now to a very broad definition that is commonly used in anti-gun circles, in order to make semi-automatic rifles look as more of a menace than they are (see another post of mine a few steps up in this thread), and has no place here. Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

A general-audience dictionary is not a valid source for technical definitions, nor is it intended to be. As a casual example, Merriam-Webster defines "gasoline" as "a volatile flammable liquid hydrocarbon mixture used as a fuel especially for internal combustion engines and usually blended from several products of natural gas and petroleum:" going by this definition, kerosene, diesel and fuel oil are all gasoline.

Meanwhile, the Brittanica article only says what is claimed if it is imagined the definition in the introduction ("...and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire...") is somehow overruled by the final paragraph. In context it clearly means that civilian sales of weapons based on military assault rifles generally require one of the key features of an assault rifle to be removed from them. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica citation was added six years ago by Faceless Enemy, and it doesn't look like anyone's complained about it during that time.[3] How come you guys are keeping that source if you think it's inaccurate and unreliable?

The Heckler & Koch HK416 is an assault rifle. It is produced in a semi-automatice variant for the civilian market. The FN FNC is an assault rifle, which is also produced in a semi-automatic variant. Ditto for FN F2000. The Bushmaster M4-type Carbine is a semi-automatic rifle that's categorized as an assault rifle and included in the List of assault rifles.

To Thomas.W - I'm not "sneaking" anything. I've never edited this article. Please retract that false accusation. And don't accuse me of bias again. Felsic2 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Felsic, it's only incorrect if you deliberately read it in a way where the opening paragraph contradicts the final one; it's not very accurate anyway (maximum size of an AR mag is 30 rounds) but it's fine for a basic definition. Semi-auto rifles are not ARs, those are listed as ARs because one of their versions is an AR. FN SCAR and Beretta ARX160 are listed under 7.62mm weapons and 5.56mm weapons even though no gun in either line fires both at the same time. The FB MSBS and Galil ACE are listed as both a battle rifle and an assault rifle, even though a rifle can't be both of those at the same time. FN SCAR also includes the categories "designated marksman rifle" and "assault rifle," which don't both apply to the weapon in question (the FN SSR, a 7.62mm battle rifle). The A-91 has two listed calibres and includes the category "grenade launcher" because the article include the weapon's UBGL; that doesn't mean the bullets the rifle fires are grenades. Steyr AUG, IMI Galil, Vektor R4, SA80 etc are listed under light machine guns even though only one version of those weapons is a machine gun. Also it would help if you actually read the articles you're citing rather than looking for "gotcha!" exceptions, given that Bushmaster M4-type Carbine says it "can be ordered by military or law enforcement organizations with three-round burst or fully automatic capability," ie, that there is a variant of the semi-auto rifle that is an actual assault rifle, and the article lists five military or LE users who presumably have the auto-capable AR version.

You will not find a single book on firearms history and classification that supports your assertion that semi-auto rifles can be regarded as assault rifles. To randomly grab a book off my shelf, on the other hand, The World Encyclopedia of Rifles and Machine Guns: An Illustrated Guide to 500 Firearms says of "assault rifle:" "It was a name that would later be used for all post-war infantry automatic weapons designed to fire the compact intermediate cartridge." Copyright 2007, since you like claiming this is an old definition. Also (since I just found the damn thing) The Book of Guns & Gunsmiths "The assault rifle used a smaller cartridge than the normal infantry rifle, but which was still a good deal more powerful than a pistol cartridge and which demanded some form of breech locking. It was light and handy and had the ability to deliver either single shots or automatic fire." That's a fair bit older (1977) but has the advantage you can't possibly argue it's politically slanted since both the authors, if the language of the quote itself doesn't give it away, are British. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The article already has the "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section....It is clear that Felsic2 wants to fundamentally change the article to match his point-of-view. However, he knows that he does not have a consensus do so. And, if he makes the changes on his own, they will be reverted, there will be an edit war, he will lose and he will be blocked...So, it seems that he is desperately trying to get "the camels nose under the tent". Well, I say NO. It's a short word, easy to spell, means the same thing in dozens of languages. The answer is NO--RAF910 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a very aggressive attack on someone who's just leaving reasonable comments on a talk page. Cut it out. Felsic2 (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the SKS an AR? Is the M27 iar? What exactly is a "battle rifle"? What exactly is an "intermediate round"? Some rifles commonly labeled "Assault rifle" have select fire that includes full auto but not burst, some have burst but not full auto. Do these newer burst rifles qualify? When did the definition of AR change to accommodate these newer burst rifles? When did the definition of AR stop changing to accommodate developments like the development of the m27 iar? What sources are accepted as being qualified to define which rifles are ARs and which and what sources aren't? What reliable source says that there is no debate over which round is intermediate and which isn't or which rifle is an AR or which isn't, or which rifle was the first AR? If god did come down to earth to give man a precise, definitive definition of the AR then it should just be a matter of bookkeeping to determine which rifle was the first AR, which rounds are intermediate, and to settle all the disputes about ARs. So, someone please tell me when man was visited by god so that god could pass to man the precise definition of what is and isn't an AR.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) Per Lead, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Since we do have a "Assault rifles vs. assault weapons" section in the article, there does need to be something about that in the Lead that summarizes that section. It should make it clear that the two terms aren't synonymous, but are sometimes used interchangeably. It shouldn't overwhelm the Lead, but something does need to be there. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Burst fire is fully automatic as far as the operating principles of the weapon are concerned, in that the gun performs multiple automated cycles of function with a single pull of the trigger, there's just a further mechanism that disconnects the firing mechanism after a set number of shots. And I don't know where you're getting this idea that the M27 IAR is semi-only, it's select-fire with a cyclic rate of 700-850rpm. Do you really think an "infantry automatic rifle" would not be automatic? Herr Gruber (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Confusion. A couple of things. Should this article cover the debate over the exact definition of the AR? I'm not specifically talking about full auto vs select fire vs semi, but the debate over which was the first true ar and so on. But also, the Thompson SMG article says that the germans developed sturmtruppen tactics with the MP-18 in ww1 and that US marines developed 4 man SMG fireteams to replace 9 man rifle fireteams in the interbellum period in banana wars and so on. The MP-18 article says that the allies didn't appreciate SMGs until ww2, and the lede in this article says that germany developed their sturmtruppen tactics in ww2 around the StG 44... It's a mess. Also, where is the fedorov avtomat mentioned? Was it a proto assault rifle? Is it an assault rifle? Is 6.5x50mm an intermediate round, or is it not close enough to the 5.56x45mm? Avtomats have come to be associated with assault rifles. Why aren't they mentioned? Was the 6mm lee-navy an intermediate round in fact or in spirit?TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

6.5x50mm is tricky because while the Arisaka round was relatively low-powered, it was still issued as a round for full-sized infantry rifles, so wasn't a purpose-designed intermediate cartridge like 7.92x33mm Kurz. The real reason the StG-44 is regarded as the "first" assault rifle is twofold: first, the term didn't exist before it, and second, it was the first true assault rifle to be produced in significant quantities (the Fedorov Avtomat was not). It does surprise me that it isn't even mentioned as a prior example of the principles the StG embodied, though. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls.

--RAF910 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the term "fully automatic" not distinguish a mode of fire that is not restrained to an arbitrary burst> There being automatic fire which covers both burst and fully automatic fire? 6.5x50 was designed to be smaller, lighter, and less powerful than other battle rifle rounds. What about .351 wsl? Where is it chiseled in stone that one is and one isn't? Where do these "strict" definitions come from and how widely accepted are they? Also, it's becoming clear that the hitler's wunderwaffen narrative is almost entirely false except perhaps for it being the source of the name itself. Also that the StG-44 wasn't the first assault rifle, it itself being a refinement of the MK-42 finalist.TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no. When you're talking about fire modes full-auto and burst are distinct (largely because you can have both on the same gun and you need to distinguish between them somehow), but burst fire requires a fully automatic firearm action to perform it. A fully automatic action is any where a single pull of the trigger produces multiple cycles of function, and the integral burst limiter is basically the same as the operator taking their finger off the trigger in mechanical terms.

There is an element of "I know it when I see it" to intermediate rounds, but it's not so much the dimensions of the round as the purpose for which it was developed: .351WSL was developed as a hunting round and 6.5 Arisaka as a round for full-sized rifles, while 7.93 Kurz was specifically developed as an intermediate between rifle and pistol for a gun designed to occupy the space between battle rifle and SMG. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an orthodxoy that's being defended here. Let's just report what all of the sources say. Felsic2 (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, not an "orthodxoy," those are the worst. Reliable sources on firearms terminology (ie, not the dictionary or sloppy quoting in a news article) give a clear definition, so we'll report that. Herr Gruber (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's quoting the atlantic pretty heavilyTeeTylerToe (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias

So I guess we're ignoring wiki BRD policy on this page? The unsourced assertion that assault rifles were first used in ww2 is not the consensus view, nor is the assertion that the germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept during world war 2. "The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR." http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 Other experts argue that the first was the federov avtomat. There is no consensus among experts that assault rifles were first used in ww2, and there is no consensus among experts that germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept. I'd support a change to saying that the germans pioneered the sturmtruppen tactics in world war 2, and so it could be said that germany pioneered new tactics based around the assault rifle, sturmgewehr, but it seems like the germans pioneered sturmtruppen tactics at the end of world war 1.TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a fringe claim, and per WP:UNDUE we go by what the mainstream opinion is, not what a single source claims. Your source also says "The Burton Balloon Buster" was designed as a specialised weapon, intended only to fire slow heavy incendiary rounds capable of defeating observation balloons, not as an infantry weapon. And the Fedorov Avtomat has been discussed multiple times, with no support for it being an assault rifle. Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What justification are you using for calling an article about guns published in the NRA journal for the american arms collector by a well respected firearms editor william b edwards. Per WP:FRINGE this does not seem to qualify as a fringe theory. The source is a reliable source. It's not original research. I'm not saying that there can't be anyone in the firearms community that disagrees so it's not a npov violation. If you do present a reliable source to support the claim that one of one of the WW2 germany designs was the first assault rifle, unlike you, I'm perfectly happy to accept that that position would hypothetically have support. And it's verifiable. How can you claim that it's a fringe theory and what support do you have for your StG 44 claim and are you violating NPOV? You seem to be willfully ignoring a verifiable claim.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that claiming there was an assault rifle before the StG-44 is like claiming there was a Dreadnought before HMS Dreadnought: while you might find a design that ticks most or even all the boxes, there was no such thing as a Dreadnought for that ship to be. Here you have something that might be considered an assault rifle (through since it was designed to be mounted it seems more like a light machine gun to me) but it's one prototype and we have no idea why it was abandoned. I understand your concern that the current article sounds like the gun just fell out of Hitler's ass one day, but at best these maybe-guns belong in a "precursors" section. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussions like this on talk pages is OR but I thought that it was the other way around. The dreadnought was the first ship to have a all major gun armament and steam turbines. I haven't heard it argued that there were dreadnought class ships before the hms dreadnought. And if there was a ship with the same features as the hms dreadnought before the hms dreadnought, shouldn't the dreadnought article reflect that if there are reliable sources to support it? I can say that four nations adopted the winchester model 1907 in small numbers. Fully automatic, intermediate round, detachable magazine. Also, it looks like there were two barrels for the winchester 1917, one for aircraft and another from infantry. I suppose you're talking about the aircraft barrel being designed to be mounted? I'm perfectly happy saying that the origin of sturmgewehr/assault rifle was in germany and could be attributed to hitler, but there are reliable sources that say that there were assault rifles before the stg-44. How can this article be NPOV if it ignores RS that say that there were assault rifles before the stg-44? Not to mention I still haven't seen a RS saying that the stg-44 was the first AR.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually IIRC only M1907s in French use were converted to fullauto and the M1907 wasn't really designed for the same role, it would be too unwieldy to use in the same way as an SMG since it didn't have a pistol grip, and only the French used large magazines with it, which since they were single-column were gigantic (see here) while everyone else used 10-rounders and used it as a semi-auto battle rifle.

I'm talking about that "balloon rifle;" by the sounds of it it's like the Villar-Perosa or MG34 Panzerlauf in that it was to come with a kit that let it be dismounted and used separately from the vehicle it was mounted on. Granted if it was actually adopted it might have become the first AR if, like the Villar-Perosa, it ended up with a dedicated infantry version, but as it is it ended up shoved down the side of a cabinet for almost a century.

Let's say we're talking about evolution and the "first" mammal. Obviously it's hard to point to one specific creature, but would you call the first mammal the creature that all other mammals share as a common ancestor (thus being the first because it defined the group of things called mammals), or the first creature with mammalian traits even though you know that creature had no actual descendants? Herr Gruber (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're choosing to define "the first assault rifle" not as the first rifle with the characteristics of an assault rifle, but the first rifle with the characteristics of an assault rifle to be adopted by a military. The thing is that's OR. A reliable source says that the first assault rifle was the winchester model 1917. Also, fwiw, giving the 1907 a forward pistol grip seems to have been a common modification going back to the '50s or earlier.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the weapon from which all modern assault rifles are conceptually descended, as opposed to a flash-in-the-pan prototype or something that was a bit like a concept that was codified later and by something else.

And as far as I know sticking a forward pistol grip on an M1907 wasn't an official modification, so it wouldn't qualify as a purpose-built assault rifle:I was also talking about it not having a rear pistol grip, and generally the wrong ergonomics for close-range use. And the problem is you have one source that advances a particular theory (I don't know why you keep calling it the "Balloon Rifle" the Winchester M1917, it was only ever a prototype and so never received a military model number and Winchester M1917 is a term for this thing) while even the most casual search of firearm histories would absolutely bury you in statements that the StG-44 was the first. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And there are plenty of RS saying the mk-42->stg-44 weren't the first assault rifles. And your argument is OR, and I think it's based on the whole central misconception. While yes, the stg-44 may have had some influence on the AK-47, AFAIK russia didn't say "there have been evolutionary developments in firearms around the world that are leading to the merging of SMGs and battle rifles but let's throw all that away. This german STG-44 is obviously a wunderwaffen. We need this nazi wunderwaffen. Make exactly this. Like the B-29 we cloned, and all the other stuff we cloned, like the cameras, and watches, and computers, and so on. Throw away all the research we were doing. Throw away this 7.62x39mm we developed in 1943.. Oh. And yea this wunderwaffen is obviously going to usher in a new era of infantry combat, but let's just wait a decade or so before we really jump on it. Then it will be that much more special. This whole 'all the worlds militaries revolved around the stg-44' idea doesn't seem to have any support. The US military was developing an intermediate cartridge the .276 iirc in 1932. The StG-44 simply didn't play this pivotal role you seem to be implying it played. AFAIK the biggest roles the stg-44 played were the sturmgewhr name, and however much it influenced the AK-47. And this whole idea that there was this tidy A to B to C evolution of assault rifles starting with the stg-44 doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. What little role the stg-44 played in world war 2 and what little influence the stg-44 had on anything other than maybe having a small role in the development of the AK-47 seem to be wildly wildly overstated. Heck, the M-16/AR-15 started out as the 7.62x51mm AR-10. The pentagon simply decided to finally use the kind of cartridge that they'd arguably been developing since 1895. They didn't say, "this ar-10 sucks, give me something like the stg-44, the katana of rifles".TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So you're trying to argue the gun the entire class of weapons is named after, a class of weapons that did not formally exist before it, didn't define the class of weapons? Yes, the British thought the StG-44 itself was stupid and the Americans compared it unfavourably to the M2 carbine. But then they went away and made their own rifles and when they did they named them after it. You might as well try to argue the V2 wasn't pivotal in US ballistic missile research because of Goddard, even though the only people who paid any real attention to Goddard's work lived in Russia and Germany. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm arguing that if there are RS that dispute this germany-hitler-stg-44 narrative than it's a npov violation not to include it. OR wise, there are some points I'd like to make. An AR is simply a large caliber SMG or a small caliber MG. That's it. A different cartridge. A 9mm AR-15 is an SMG. A 7.62mm AR is an AR-10 MG. I haven't looked into it, but let's say that the US moved from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45 because a light, fast bullet that fragments and produces a good festering wound, taking soldiers out of combat for a comparatively long time was deemed to be better than a heavy bullet that produced through and throughs. Plus probably better zero drop distance or whatever. They decided to simply change the caliber to a concept that they'd been developing since 1895. You're saying that the US military came to jesus, finding the one true god/religion (it's just a common phrase) with the STG-44 being jesus, but they just changed one thing, and does the stg-44 or even the ak-47 have either of those two advantages? Does the 7.62 kruz or whatever fragment and tumble, and does it have improved zero drop range? No, and no, as far as I know. When the US adopted the M-16 they were actually moving away from the stg-44. They were moving in their own direction. Which makes perfect sense because the only reason anyone would think anything else is if they were trying to force this wunderwaffen narrative on the M-16 with absolutely no support whatsoever. The American M-16 assault rifle is an american invention that was developed along different, diverging paths from the stg-44. You've created this OR no true scotsman first AR definition, the federov's 6.5x50 so so no true scotsman is 6.5x50, the m3 is .30 carbine so no true scotsman is .30 carbine. The M1907 was issued in france so no true scotsman so no true scotsman has a semi-pistol grip with non service approved front full pistol grips. The balloon buster has everything but it was designed both for aircraft use and infantry use so no true scotsman has an aircraft version complementing the infantry version that is designed to mount on an aircraft. Ever more and more tortured your definition becomes and you draw these conclusions from this tortured definition you create where the premise and the conclusion are both wrong. Russia and france had already adopted the federov avtomat and the winchester 1917. The gas tube arrangement that russia adopted may have come from the mk-42 or one of it's predecessors. iirc it was the walther with the upper gas tube but it could easily have been the haenel. But it was the switch from 6.5 to 7.62x39, a round that russia developed independently in '43 that gets it your true scotsman blessing. And for france presumably it was the move from the partial pistol grip to the full pistol grip and the stg-44 certainly has no claim to that. And, as I've said, similarly, the stg 44 had little to no influence on the development of the m-16. And god, it's even more tortured than that. There already was a class name for this group of weapons in the 1930s accepted in germany and the us at least. Machine carbine. All that happened was that someone came up with a snappier name. Like warfighter and all that godawful tripe. But you realize that creating the idiot phrase warfighter didn't change anything... What does it matter if they call it the machine carbine or the self-loading rifle, individual combat weapon, infantry automatic rifle. The air force adopted the m-16 because it was cheap, then mcnamara adopted it because it was the only rifle in contention that fit the needs of all three services. The M-16 was adopted as: "Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm" And that's the story of how the US military adopted hitler's katana. What conclusions can you draw about the M-16 and the STG-44? Pretty much none. Did the M-16 get it's plastics from the stg-44? It's aluminum? It's caliber? It's fps? It's carry handle? How did the STG-44 influence the Rifle, Caliber 5.56mm M-16? What does it mean that the US (didn't really) choose a marketing term from hitler's propaganda file?TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You're getting really confused with this "Winchester 1917" thing. The "Balloon Rifle" is the one from 1917, but would never have got a model number since that indicates year of production and it never entered production (probably due to questions about whether the fearsome power of a canvas bag full of hydrogen really warranted a special weapon to deal with it). It seems to have been an LMG in the form it was in (ie, designed to be mounted) but if it had gone the Villar-Perosa routes ("this is useless, give it to the infantry") it might have ended up pioneering the concept a lot sooner than it was in real history, but we'll never know that. France adopted a select-fire M1907 in line with their "walking fire gun" concept, but the M1907 certainly wasn't designed to be used at short range like a true assault rifle, particularly given how unwieldy any magazine over ten rounds was. And neither the M1907 or the Fedorov Avtomat used a purpose-designed intermediate round, instead using respectively a round designed for hunting and a long rifle round.

It's certainly true that there was a history of development prior to the creation of assault rifles by other countries, which shouldn't be any kind of surprise since if there wasn't it would have been impossible for them to invent their own; yes, the AK represented a Russian attempt to develop a compromise between the beloved PPSh and a long rifle and mechanically was completely unrelated to the StG, but conceptually it was a successor; they looked at the thing, looked at their research and said "yes, that's where we're going with this, let's use this stuff we already know to make one of those our way."

I've said several times that I don't approve of the current article implying that there was no history of development of similar weapons prior to the StG, but equally since prior to that there was no category of weapons called assault rifles it is correct to say it was the crystallisation of the concept at very least. One could certainly reference things like the French walking fire rifle concept, but these early designs are obscure and forgotten because they failed to catch on, so saying they were the de facto first is a little misleading. As with the evolution example, they're the equivalent of dead ends which happened to have the features of a later group.

(Also IIRC the switch to 5.56 wasn't to do with wounding, it was because the M14 was practically unusable in full-auto). Herr Gruber (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The win mod 1907 used the .351 wsl, an intermediate cartridge. Interestingly the article says that an M1 thompson prototype was made in .351 wsl. The ~9mm bullet on a .351 is a little fat, but it's right in the middle of the pack energy wise for an intermediate cartridge. It seems like I'm not alone in being confused about the model 1917 winchester-burton "balloon buster" machine rifle. http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the Is that name perfectly accurate? I don't know. Want to just call it the balloon buster? Why not? But it had two variants, one for infantry without mounting, and one for aircraft with mounting, some even had bayonet mounts. The select-fire M1907s were issued with 15 or 20 round magazines, not 10 round. "they're the equivalent of dead ends which happened to have the features of a later group." Well, the 1907 was manufactured for 52 years... How much of a dead end/flash in the pan was the 1930s walther machine karbine? How much of a dead end/flash in the pan was the federov avtomat? This flash in the pan/dead end concept seems to be based on this mistaken idea that the STG-44 would replace the federov avtomat as the source of inspiration for the russians which is wrong. This flash in the pan/dead end concept seems to be based on this mistaken idea that individual countries didn't have their own agency, their own development paths that had relatively little influence from the stg-44. In russia it was probably the federov that had more of an influence than the stg-44, which would lead to the argument that it was the federov that was more influential, although less famous and popular with casual ww2 fans who think that the king tiger was the best tank or whatever, and the german jet was the best airplane. It seems like what we're dancing around is just a statement saying that the stg-44 was the first assault rifle to see significant deployment/widespread deployment. The development of ARs in other countries is a surprise to someone reading this article because it says that the AR was first used in ww2, and were pioneered in germany in ww2. Also, while germany did outfit one single division with stg-44s for a short time, a year? AFAIK they then switched to the US M2 carbine and didn't switch back to ARs for decades. So this idea that german army in it's entirety or majority transitioned to the AR is wrong, and this idea stated in this article that the german army adopted the AR abandoning other infantry rifles early and continued using ARs until today is wrong and misleading. This is a second way that the stg-44 was a dead end. When compared to 100 million, is a production of ~440,000 rifles really "large numbers"? And this is all not mentioning apparently the stg-44's main mode of operation was semi-automatic. Full auto was a secondary mode. So this whole idea of giving the front line infantry machine guns, multiplying their firepower is wrong too, I suppose it was there to give individual soldiers the ability to perform suppression fire when it was called for, an ability that russian ppsh-41 soldiers obviously had. One that US marine 4 man fireteams had, that probably the british and french developed as well. The french were trying to develop their Ribeyrolle 1918. It seems arguably that in 1918 the french army sat down and said "Let's develop an assault rifle. Pistol grip, detachable magazine, intermediate cartridge, effective range 400m. Let's make a stg-44. Let's call it a stg-44. Hitler had a lot..." It's just that the Ribeyrolle 1918 didn't quite meet their accuracy requirements. It was a bit too heavy and they gave up rather than soldiering on, probably influenced by outside factors. In 1918 the french military set aside the Ribeyrolle 1918 because it wasn't enough like the stg-44. I've never had any objection to saying that the stg-44 was the first ar to see wide manufacturing and wide deployment, equipping a single division for about a year before the german military who had never adopted the stg-44 as it's main infantry rifle dropped the AR concept entirely. But so far the only thing that's happened is that any edits I've made to the article have been reverted. So how do we move this article away from what it is now to a form that's more representative of the history of ARs as reflected by RS. Whenever I try to remove statements that are factually inaccurate it just gets reverted.TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's your assertion that .351 WSL was an intermediate cartridge since the designers didn't create it to bridge the gap between SMG and AR, they created it for shooting deer.

The balloon buster rifle (that article's name of "Winchester-Burton Machine Rifle" seems the most accurate name) strikes me as a weapon with two configurations rather than two variants, rather like the MG34 Panzerlauf: it was supposed to be used by the crew if the aircraft had to ditch by swapping out the barrel for one with a bayonet lug and sling mount. Like the Villar-Perosa, if it had ever been adopted in any number they'd probably have started issuing ground versions of it to infantry and it would have spun off and become its own thing, but that didn't happen and we don't know if it even worked since the testing data has been lost; I'm not entirely convinced a 10-pound WW1-era MG wouldn't have had some issues with dismantling itself while firing.

Yeah, I know French select-fire M1907s were issues with 15 and 20 rounders (I bought that up earlier) but a 20-rounder for the M1907 looks like this, I don't think you could really consider the result a weapon suitable for close-range engagements.

It wouldn't surprise me if the soldiers with StGs were told to regard auto as a secondary function given that historically European militaries never trusted their troops to not piss away all their ammo (same logic as SMLE magazine cut-offs and the initial reluctance to purchase magazine rifles at all), but does that correlate with how they were used in the field?

I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

that 20 round magazine would be ~seven inches long. An AR-15 magazine is ~7.5 inches long. So I'd say that it just seems overlarge because the rifle itself isn't tall and there's no pistol grip or prominent magazine well. Apparently the ammo conservation problem was particular with the US military as well. I don't think the US Military chose the .351 to shoot deer from airplanes with explosive/incendiary shells. "I would say it's best to characterise the StG as the first mass produced assault rifle and the first to actually use the name, since neither is particularly contentious, and list earlier examples that fit or sort of fit the category in a "history" or "early examples of the concept" section without asserting they're they first either." that seems like a good consensus view. Less of this AR originated in ww2 germany false narrative.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given we're largely agreed here, I'll wait for other input. Re: the .351, that's the game cartridge the M1907 used, not the cartridge the Winchester-Burton used. The latter was a special .345 that was designed primarily as a calibre for incendiary / tracer rounds rather than conventional bullets. I'd assume the ground version was to use a solid bullet, though it didn't actually have to since your second article misses that the USA isn't a signatory of the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 and so would be under no obligation to follow it. Also re: auto, it seems most firearm manuals of the time described select-fire weapons like that, the FG42 manual said it was a semi-automatic rifle that could be used in fully-automatic mode "in an emergency," though granted in the FG42's case it would be more likely to cause the emergency. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have again reverted, TeeTylerToe edits. He does not have consensus to make said changes...quite the opposite. He also remove information that was supported by multiple references and replaced it with info that was completely unsourced. Which I find ironic as TeeTylerToe believes the article is "False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias". Also, TeeTylerToe's edit to this talk page are chaotic to say the least. As others have succinctly said "a wall of questions and comments" that make it difficult to determine what his specific grievance are, or with whom. --RAF910 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is the lack of consensus? This discussion has been going on for almost a week and we reached a consensus. If you want to try to change that consensus go ahead, but please stop with your disruptive editing. I've provided multiple reliable sources contradicting the information that I've removed. Even the references themselves contradict the stg-44 narrative, "The much-touted "new" weapon is actually the familiar German machine carbine with a more chest-thumping title." "The completely new name of Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) may be intended to erase any recollection of the mediocre quality of the earlier M. P. 43's, at least so far as new troops and the public are concerned. In any event, the introduction of the title Sturmgewehr, together with the accompanying blast of propaganda concerning the weapon, is but another example of German efforts to exploit the propaganda value inherent in weapons with impressive-sounding titles, such as Panzer, Tiger, Panther, and Flak 88. Since the Sturmgewehr is more easily mass-produced than a rifle or machine gun because of its many stampings and low-power ammunition, and because a machine carbine is needed by desperately fighting German infantry in their efforts to stem the assault of American troops, it is natural that the Germans should make every effort to capitalize on its propaganda potentialities. By dubbing the M. P. 43 the Sturmgewehr, Hitler may also succeed in deceiving many Germans into thinking that this weapon is one of the many decisive "secret weapons" which they have been promised, and which they are told will bring final German victory." The references also support the edits I made. "the Germans rather tardily decided that they needed a weapon representing a compromise between the submachine gun (or machine pistol) and the rifle." "Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions),", "[The AK-47] has been produced in more countries, and greater quantities, and to a greater degree of international standardization than any other rifle in history." Germany made ~426,000 stg 44s and they equipped one division with them for about a year. They weren't the first in the world, or the first in germany. Over a hundred million ak-47s have been made equipping ~200 russian divisions and ~200 chinese divisions and that's just those two countries. And as the m-16 case study says, the US Military was still uninterested in either the stg-44 or the ak-47. In fact, the study notes that it was in the 1895-1900 timeframe that the US military was studying the wounding capability of smaller, faster rounds such as the 6mm round. That both the M1 garand and the M1 carbine had been developed into automatic rifles during world war 2 without the influence of the stg-44, the automatic m1 garand, for instance, being influenced by plans for a ground war against japan. "While many senior leaders and ordnance officials lauded the capabilities of the .30’06 cartridge, others felt it was overly powerful for the requirements of the modern battlefield. In April 1923, representatives of the Infantry and Cavalry stated they felt that the .30’06 caliber cartridge was one of the main obstacles in the design of a semi-automatic rifle" "He cited studies conducted in Europe on the lethality of smaller caliber cartridges and offered to design a new selfloading rifle in caliber .276. He theorized that the smaller caliber cartridge would be more accurate, weigh less and cost less than the current .30’06 cartridge. Subsequent field trials on the Pedersen rifle and his competitor’s design, the Garand, concluded that the .276 caliber was indeed more suited for a self-loading rifle, and all developmental research for a .30’06 caliber semi-automatic rifle was suspended." They also tested .256, and eventually performed rifle trials comparing a .276 garand design against the .30-06 with the .276 winning the competition, and remember, with the face of an invasion of japan, the US would realize the need for an automatic garand. The sources also go into the western adoption of assault rifles with excruciating detail concluding that US intervention delayed western adoption until the 70s. http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html that's just one more source that supports my edits. "As others have succinctly said "a wall of questions and comments" that make it difficult to determine what his specific grievance are, or with whom." That makes sense to you? What does it mean? How do you think that consensus is achieved? Do you think that it's whatever you say it is? I made well sourced, well referenced edits. They were reverted. I discussed them on the talk page. The talk page discussion was rather drawn out.TeeTylerToe (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please read Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read
2. you remove information that was supported with multiple references, while your edits were completely unrefrenced
3. this talk page conversation was about the "American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917" which you repeatedly hailed as the gold standard and absolute proof that the STG44 was not the first assault rifle. However, your edit made no mention of it. That is called BAIT & SWITCH.--RAF910 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:TLDR an essay, "Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter acronym." Although fair's fair. You do say very little. Is your view of life dr;dr? Don't read, didn't read? Nothing I added is unsourced/unreferenced, not to mention, you may have noticed a bit of a discussion on the talk page? How is that bait and switch? It's a well respected firearm publication editor posted in a well respected reliable source saying that the stg-44 wasn't the first assault rifle. But did you notice that I've also posted a long string of other sources supporting that? http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/05/americas-first-assault-rifle-designed-world-war/ http://www.wideopenspaces.com/americas-first-assault-rifle-the-burton-1917-light-machine-rifle/ TeeTylerToe (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be refactored in line with WP:RFC, a specific question asked and an area set aside for responses?

Was the StG-44 the first assault rifle, designed and employed as such?

Discussion

Yes, of course it was. There may have been precursor weapons which performed the same function, but they rarely got beyond prototype or experimental stage. The StG-44 was designed to fill the assault rifle role, produced and employed in large numbers. It is quite obviously the first of many similar weapons, all sharing similar characteristics, and all commonly described as assault rifles. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was. I agree 100% with Pete. Perfectly, eloquently and succinctly stated.--RAF910 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's self-contradictory. "there may have been precursor weapons [sharing the characteristics of, and commonly described as assault rifles, but] It is quite obviously the first [except the other ones I just mentioned that came before it].TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the bit you left out: "…they rarely got beyond prototype or experimental stage…". We can burrow down that rabbit hole as far as you like, but it's all words, not assault rifles down there. I think we're looking for consensus, rather than a stubborn holdout. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you'll read the discussion above, Herr Gruber and I came to an agreement to say that the StG-44 was the first mass produced assault rifle, rather the NPOV violating statements currently being defended by the stubborn holdout RAF910 that assault rifles were (apocryphally) developed in germany, (apocryphally) during world war 2, that the intermediate cartridge was (apocryphally) developed in germany, that the 7.92x33mm kruz was (apocryphally) revolutionary and not a direct development of a swiss intermediate cartridge (iirc). The stg-44 probably wasn't the first rifle with the over the barrel gas system, iirc the lewis 1918 "assault phase rifle" had an over the barrel gas system.TeeTylerToe (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Lewis rifle never made it past the prototype stage and fired a full rifle round. Not an assault rifle. --Pete (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You make an excellent argument against this patently ridiculous idea that there exists some true definition of what is and isn't an AR and what is and isn't an intermediate round, but what does that have to do with when and where ARs were developed, the significance of the 7.92 kurz, where the intermediate cartridge was developed, and which rifle first had an over the barrel gas system? Are you conceding every point except the over the barrel gas system one? Are you making the same argument about first ar that you're making about first over the barrel gas system? The wright flyer wasn't a particularly useful airplane it wasn't built in significant numbers and it wasn't adopted by any nation or even company iirc, but it was still the first airplane. There are reliable sources saying that the STG didn't have the first over the barrel gas system. It would be an npov violation to try to suppress that.TeeTylerToe (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You called for opinions, and I'm giving mine. If you want to berate me for having a different opinion to yours, that's fine. So far you haven't offered any arguments sufficient to make me change my mind. As for spurious arguments about aircraft, I don't think there's any one ultimate definition of an airliner or a fighter or a patrol aircraft, but the Wright Flyer wouldn't match any. Likewise assault rifles, a specialised variety of firearm. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"The research led to an article published in the NRA Journal for the American Arms Collector, Man at Arms, (Vol. 13, No. 1, January/February 1991), titled The Burton Balloon Buster by William B. Edwards. Mr. Edwards emphatically asserted that this was indeed the first true assault rifle; developed in 1917. The father of this remarkable weapon was none other than Frank B. Burton, the noted engineer who worked with John Browning on the first BAR." http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 Other experts argue that the first was the federov avtomat, others argue that it was the winchester 1907, or the winchester-burton 1917. Some say it was the Ribeyrolle CM 1918, some say it was the Weibel/Danrif Rifle, some say it was the 1932 Korovin Avtomat, or the vollmer m35, or the ZK-412. There are plenty of reliable sources disputing any claim of what the first assault rifle was. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that ARs were first developed in germany. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that ARs were first developed in ww2? How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that the 7.92 kurz was revolutionary. How about maybe this article not have the falsehood that the stg-44 introduced the over the barrel gas system, inline stock, pistol grip, or the first to have that combination? What if the history section didn't violate NPOV policy? What if this article followed the same rules of every other article and what if editors weren't pushing apocryphal POV narratives that are contradicted by reliable sources?TeeTylerToe (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course the StG-44 was the first assault rifle. No matter how emphatically Mr. Edwards asserts that the "Burton Balloon Buster" was the first one... Thomas.W ^talk 13:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, (un-involved editor here), this "Discussion" is going no where because no one is citing sources (except for one pretty unreliable source cited by TeeTylerToe that, filtered through WP:YESPOV, would rank as cited opinion at best). Content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors.

POV discussion

This article is not written from a neutral point of view. Reliable sources are being removed to support a narrative that assault rifles were developed in ww2 germany and that the stg-44 was some kind of revolutionary rifle, that the stg-44 pioneered the over the barrel gas system, and that the 7.92 kurz was the first intermediate round, along with some other non-neutral assertions. On the contrary, numerous reliable sources support the fact that development of intermediate cartridges date back to ~1895 or earlier, that the 7.92 kurz was a direct development of a previous swiss intermediate cartridge, that there are examples of assault rifles and over the barrel gas systems before world war 2, and that development of assault rifles occurred concurrently as a logical mix of the attributes of common smgs and lmgs and this development took place concurrently in many countries such as the US, great britain, russia, as well as pre-ww2 germany. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=121 http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/139141156104/the-winchester-burton-machine-rifle-the http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/02/sturmgewehr-assault-rifle-developments-prior-1942/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/05/americas-first-assault-rifle-designed-world-war/ http://www.wideopenspaces.com/americas-first-assault-rifle-the-burton-1917-light-machine-rifle/TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• The article is not POV since it is written from a mainstream point of view (with the mainstream point of view being that the StG-44 was the first assault rifle since it was the first firearm to combine all of the defining characteristics in a single weapon). The one who is guilty of POV editing is you, for insisting on the "Burton Balloon Buster" being the first assault rifle, a weapon that doesn't fit the mainstream definition of "assault rifle", was never intended to fill the role of an assault rifle, and never even entered service as an infantry weapon. And then on top of that adding a POV-tag to the article for not getting your way here... Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is OR. It's not for me to say anything. My opinions are irrelevant. My point of view is irrelevant. Just as your opinion, no matter how much you bold it, has no place in a wikipedia article. Your pov is just as irrelevant as my pov. Reliable sources say that different rifles were the first AR. Reliable sources say that the AR wasn't developed in WW2 germany. Reliable sources say that the 7.92 kurz was not the first intermediate cartridge and that the stg-44 was not the first assault rifle with an over the barrel gas system, and was not the first rifle to have any of those three features. and nor was it the first rifle to share all three of those features. Please follow the instructions of the POV tag and do not remove it until the conditions to remove the tag have been met.TeeTylerToe (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. If you look hard enough you can with all probability find a source that supports any given view, no matter how fringe it is, which is why we go by what the mainstream view is (i.e. whatever view is predominant in reliable sources). Thomas.W ^talk 14:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" William B. Edwards, prominent editor of a well respected firearms publication is a prominent adherent to the view that the 1917 winchester-burton rifle was the first assault rifle. I've also linked several other sources supporting it. This isn't the flat earth society.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)