Talk:Assault rifle

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

AK partially developed by Hugo Schmeisser

The article claims that Hugo Schmeisser was on the development team of the AK-47, however the source of this given claim only claims "believed" and "likely"[1]. As the article of Hugo Schmeisser states, the entire design of the AK was made in Degtyaryov Plant before moving to Izhmash in 1948, when serial manufacture had begun for troop trials.

When looking inside of the AK rifle, it can be seen that these are nothing alike, bar the long stroke gas piston. The AK is a rotating bolt weapon with the recoil spring mounted around the recoil spring guide, whilst the StG 44 is a tilting bolt weapon and has its recoil spring in the buttstock, not unlike the buffer tube of an ArmaLite AR-10 or ArmaLite AR-15. If anything, the STG has more in common with the ArmaLite designs than the AK, particularly the disassembly and lower recievers of said weapons.

There was an AK that was very similar to the STG 44, that being the AK-46, discussed in the AK page. The AK-46 was a short stroke weapon and it did have an upper and a lower reciever. However this AK is mechanically speaking more akin to something like an ArmaLite AR-18, most notably the short stroke rotating bolt and the gas tube above the barrel. This weapon however didn't continue further than testing until being completely redesigned to the AK-47.

The only similarity that these weapons share is the long stroke gas piston and the general role of a selective fire rifle meant to be used until ~400 meters. If "influenced" means that one design was adopted before the other, surely the AR series are influenced by the AK, being a mass adopted assault rifle.

As such, why does the article say that the AK had been partially developed by Hugo Schmeisser?

https://web.archive.org/web/20210117103742/https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-most-influential-gun-designers-20th-century-173382 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Schmeisser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 BleachedDog (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. BilCat (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What consensus? We're having a discussion over a case of WP:DUBIOUS: a claim Hugo personally made some edits to AK-47's design. 109.252.65.192 (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, since you are a retired user, you probably won't mind if this question will be reactivated. Basically, there is an article with WP:RANDY levels of reasoning, hence the likely word of excuse and such. 2A00:1FA0:20F:F43A:0:5F:2C9:6C01 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

kalashnikov.ru has an article on how unrelated the guns are. Comment: Russian "Slyshaly zvon..." phrase is an idiom similar in "Randy in the bush". 2A00:1FA0:20F:F43A:0:5F:2C9:6C01 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

it's from a blog anyone can happily delete it for irrelevance

I would request to see the line

Hugo Schmeisser, the designer of the Sturmgewehr, was captured after World War II, and helped develop the AK-47 assault rifle,

deleted from the section on AK-47.

Reason: https://web.archive.org/web/20210117103742/https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-most-influential-gun-designers-20th-century-173382 link uses words "blog" and "buzz".

1. The "blog/buzz" part it's a blogpost. Blogposts are not a relevant source of information per se.
2. "Buzz" refers to the idea of "buzzfeed"; which implies the blogpost was made for the sake of catchyness, rather than seriousness.

81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Some background of the site, I see no reason to remove this --Denniss (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Denniss The background implies the original blogpost was deleted for a reason other than the site being taken down or deleted after losing hosting priveleges. ALSO: please reconsider the direct line has no words like "likely" and instead, creates a post hoc sum ergo hoc fallacy. Dixi 81.89.66.133 (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Blog posts are not inherently unreliable sources -- those with editorial control and standards, like the National Interest, are acceptable sources. Your assumption that "Buzz" refers to the idea of "buzzfeed" is nonsense speculation. Regardless, the BBC agrees with the National Interest's take ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester 45 minute response SWAT over National Interests and assault rifles! Now that's some quality WP:) material, thanks! 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Point taken. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The BBC newsletter is nice and all, but there is no paper trail to be followed here. As argued above, the STG and AK are mechanically two very different firearms, and the timelines do not match. The AK was mostly finalized in Kovrov as stated in Hugo Schmeissers page.

I do not trust this article beyond the observation of the wrong weapon being sculpted as it furthermore claims that the STG-44 was the first of its kind. There were even earlier German intermediate rifles produced and fielded such as the MKb-42, and about 30 years before that there already were attempts at a lower power LMG or automatic rifle, chief among them being the Ribeyrolles 1918, Cei-Rigotti and the Federov. BleachedDog (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

“Assault” rifle is a bs liberal term like assault golf club, assault cat 🐈, etc. 2600:6C5E:32F0:A8A0:C1CE:C4B7:A8B9:F4CD (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done. You seem confused with assault weapon; assault rifle is military terminology. Please get the basic facts straight before wading into contentious topics, and make a policy-based argument next time, k? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Assault rifle - is it a calque, based on Sturmgevehr word?

On the other, the article doesn't ... doesn't really highlight the idea "assault rifle" phrase comes from the name of the gun that is supposed to be the first gun of "own" class. The article could use an "etymology" section. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You mean like an "origin of term" section? - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yup. The section kind of lacks the part where the calque took place (e.g. where the English "Assault rifle" took hold) 81.89.66.133 (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You mean like the sourced statement "Allied propaganda suggested that the name was chosen for propaganda purposes, but the main purpose was to differentiate the Sturmgewehr from German submachine guns such as the MP 40."? - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Why, thank you. The suggestion is the answer. It's just so happens I got a little confused over the wording, but that's about it. ~2026-97924-9 (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2026

Change 'all rifles which would be considered battle rifles by modern standarts.' to standards. Tequa9706 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"Origin of term" section

I think the part of the section that reads "The term Sturmgewehr was also used for the Sturmgewehr 58, Sturmgewehr 52 and HK417 by official manuals, all rifles which would be considered battle rifles by modern standards." should be deleted, as it concerns the German term "Sturmgewehr" and not the origins of the English term "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" isn't perfectly analogous to "Sturmgewehr" even though it is derived from "Sturmgewehr". In English language sources assault rifles are classified as intermediate cartridge weapons while the same evidently doesn't hold true in German sources. As the text stands it just confuses things, IMO. Sus scrofa (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)