Opinions Please - Are Assault Rifles Perfected?

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I sincerely believe that the concept of Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle are flawed and do not actually contribute to the understanding of what they are & how they are used.

The terms are too arbitrary, for instance, according to prevailing thought, these two rifles are Battle Rifles: -
.303 bolt-action SMLE
7.62x51mm select-fire G3

The 5.56mm HK33 is classed as "Assault" Rifle by virtue of it's ammo even thought it is identical in form and function to the G3.
The G3 is lumped together with the SMLE even though they share almost nothing in common regarding design, design philosophy, function and usage.

Given that we have certain designs in several calibres that make the one design available as both battle and assault rifle and we also have what are basically SMGs that fire 5.56mm (commonly called Micro Assault Rifles rather than SMG), I think part of the problem with deciding if "assault" rifles are perfected, is how they are defined.

At least what I was taught the G3 and the SMLE are not in the same class. Just becasue it is used in battle does not make it a battle rifle. One is a bolt action rifle the other is a Battle Rifle. To be a battle rifle it has to be selective fire using a full power cartridge, so a bolt action is not going to fall under that. And the Assault rifle has to be the same as a battle rifle but it uses an intermediate cartridge.

As for having the same designs in several calibers you can have in the same basic design a SMG (uses pistol cartridges), Assault Rifle, and Battle Rifles. But the different cartridges and what goes with it does make a very big difference, at least I think so.