In the past, the definition of an “assault rifle” (in the military context) was a weapon that:
(1) Fired an “intermediate” cartridge (7.62x39, 5.56x45, etc.)
(2) Is fed from a detachable magazine
(3) Is capable of selectable fire - semi or full auto
These days, is this definition still applicable or has it been narrowed or expanded?
“Assault rifle” and “assault weapon” are legal terms that only apply in jurisdictions that make the distinction, and they have their own specific statutory definitions. In the US, the expired federal assault weapon ban definitions are generally used as a model.
Trying to come up with a generalized, invented definition for the term (which is a logically useless term to begin with) outside of those parameters is pointless, unless you’re sitting on the front porch with a glass of whisky and a couple of friends with nothing better to do with the balance of the evening.
The problem exists in trying to come up with these minute distinctions to begin with. I used to follow the same logic, hastily berating anyone for using the wrong term, or politically motivated terms. But, in the end, it doesn’t matter. It’s all a side distraction from what the real issues should be.
If someone can’t be trusted with an automatic rifle, then, frankly, they shouldn’t be trusted with a shotgun, bolt rifle, handgun, or any other firearm. What we have is a people problem, not a hardware problem.
Pretty much except “assault weapon” is more of a military classification and “assault rifle” is a legal term. And once codified into law and enforced by government agencies it became THE accepted term for all real world considerations. So you are absolutely correct, we can call them EBRs, SURs and other terms all we like but we might as well call them pixie sticks for all it matters.
I don’t own Assault Rifles regardless of what the anti’s say. I own sporting rifles that I use for target shooting, self defense and just collecting. They can take that hyperbole and cram it.
The definition of assault rifle has been so bastardized, it means absolutly nothing anymore but what antis want it to be.
Guys I don’t think the OP meant this as an anti-2A question, but more of a technical question. OP I think the technical definitions of Assault and Battle rifle still apply but I don’t know anyone that uses them in daily life, we usually use the nomenclature of the rifle we are talking about. I have 25 years in the Army and never heard these terms until joining websites like this one.
The point is that there is no definition beyond legal definitions. It’s a useless and irrelevant distinction. If it was a useful one there would be a better, more universally accepted definition.
assault weapon is a political term. The whole term is silly because it implies that theres a weapon not capable of assault.
STG-44 Stutmgewehr literally means storm rifle. Storm can be interpreted as assault.
Just saying. That’s the OG.
Generally, I wouldn’t refer to an M1 Garand or K98k Mauser as “assault rifles” in the classic sense, but I imagine there are those who would.
I used to shoot my kid brother in the backside with my Daisy .177 when we were kids. That would’ve made the Daisy an, “assault” rifle.
All I’ve ever done with my AR’s is punch paper with them. That would make them, my, “Liberty TEETH.” 
I don’t think anyone would classify an M1 or K98 as an assault rifle.
I always use “military style rifle”, “defensive rifle”, or “semi-automatic rifle” to describe what the antis call “assault” rifles. I don’t go and call it a “modern sporting rifle” because #1: the anti-gunners aren’t buying it, #2: Most anti-gun people are not in politics and don’t hold the PC view of “supporting the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee to let people hunt” but seeking “compromise” by banning “high capacity clips” and “weapons that only the police and military should have…” Most virulent anti-gunners hold the view of a total ban on guns because hunting is a cruel sport, target shooting encourages violent behavior, and self-defense means calling 911. I can’t tell you how many times people have said that they wish the police would just go door to door, take every gun and kill anyone who so much as protests.
I’m not going to BS and justify that my AR is just a scary looking deer gun. I have slug guns and bolt guns that fire a lot more powerful rounds than a 5.56. Whenever someone asks why anyone “needs” a “high” capacity magazine or an “assault” rifle, I always say this: “They are great for target shooting or for movement and defensive drills. Also, in the unlikely event of the breakdown of order, such as what happened in the 92 LA Riots, they serve as great deterrents to multiple threats. Just standing by your home holding one is enough to let people know that you are willing to defend yourself, and you have the tools to do it.” I’ve had some people say “Oh, that’s inflammatory and threatening…” I say BS. I’m citing a very recent historical example of something actually happened, not a conspiracy or paranoid prepper scenario. It lets people know that there are “legitimate” uses for the scary looking guns beyond shooting up schools and movie theaters, that normal people own them, and that they have been successfully used in worst case scenarios by ordinary civilians.
The definition seems to change based off which community you are speaking with. There are so many definitions that it’s almost impossible to keep up with all of them.
Well, since “SCAR” is apparently embraced by the Army, there would seem to be at least some official use of the term.
As others have said, it is largely now a legal ‘term of art’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology
It is an antiquated technical term from WWII. Since WWI armies were looking for a weapon that could function as an SMG at close range and a rifle short rifle ranges (Germans set this range at 125m). Since the evolution of CQC/CQB/AUC/Battle Drill 6 ect., few really feel the need for SMG functionality. A well made ‘sporting rifle’ with a standard capacity detachable magazine is more than sufficient for most ground combat.
THE ABOVE Assault weapon is nothing more than a political term these days.
That’s Sturmgewehr, and decades of mistranslation is really annoying. Sturm means “assault” being derived from the verb stürmen which means to assault or attack. Sturm can also be translated as a gale, tempest, or squall. There are many words in the German language for “assault” and “attack” (color me shocked, right?) and many words describing bad weather. German isn’t like English in that words have singular meanings. They are often times be contextual, and virtually every noun can be changed by adding adjectives in front of it. Adding “Sturm” in front of “Geweher” is going to yield a different meaning than “Sturm” in front of “Wolke” (which means cloud).
Is it perhaps ironic that Stormin knows a lot about the word stürmen?
I think calling them “sporting rifles” is silly. It’s a deadly weapon designed for killing humans. Let’s not sugar coat it.
On the other hand, antis need to get over it. The Second Amendment wasn’t written for three gun competitions or skeet shooting.
The “charm offensive” that we have been trying to use against antis doesn’t really matter. Sporting or not, they want them gone.