Waywatcher
Member
I don't care for it; it is as contrived as "assault weapon." Modern in the name is bound to create future headaches, when the next most modern thing comes out.
Do you like the term "MSR: Modern Sporting Rifle"
- Thread starter Vinney47
- Start date
I can appreciate both sides of this argument, but don't get it twisted, names are precisely what is going to win this fight. The only reason the gun haters have gotten as far as they have is because they have branded semi automatic rifles as "assault weapons". Say it loud enough and enough times, and you will convince the average person out there that it is in fact just that. And it is for that reason that I believe the moniker "Modern Sporting Rifles" should be adopted by all semi auto owners. And that's another thing... yes most of us own an AR, but the term isn't synonymous. What about the Sig owners, HK owners, Scar owners, and the like. The term describes any and all semi auto rifles. So I say use it, loudly, and as often as possible. Get it out there so that those that don't share our passion will at the very least have a counter to "assault weapon". Just my $.02.
Oh, and although I own plenty of bolt action rifles, when I go hunting these days (hogs and deer mostly) a 6.8 AR-15 goes with me. An AR lower is the modern TC Contender frame. Take advantage of its versatility.
Oh, and although I own plenty of bolt action rifles, when I go hunting these days (hogs and deer mostly) a 6.8 AR-15 goes with me. An AR lower is the modern TC Contender frame. Take advantage of its versatility.
OP
Vinney47
Member
Yeah, that's come up a couple times in the thread now. In my neck of the woods we use MSRP (manufactuers suggested retail price), so MSR is up for grabs as a new acronym/moniker. I don't particularly like it though.
OP
Vinney47
Member
You make some good points. Just to play devils advocate though... I think that if we were able to phase out "assault rifle" with the more-friendly-to-gun-owners "MSR", the gun grabbers would find a way to make MSR a dirty term anyway.
Like it or not, though, I think "assault rifle" is here to stay. It's a class of guns in video games (any of the Call of Duty line) along with "light machine guns" "shotguns" and "sniper rifles". Not that I use video game lingo to make judgement calls or anything, just one piece of evidence that the term has made it's way into pop culture as well as political culture. Heck, a lot of people think the "AR" in "AR-15" (that even we as owners sometimes shorten to simply "AR") stands for assault rifle.
BigCityChief
Member
To me, MSR means Military Supply Route, US Army jargon for "road." I have this crazy notion that AR-15's should be called "AR-15's."
SmokeandSteel
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2013
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 0
For all intents and purposes, 4 of 5 times, I am using an AR-15 carbine for varmint hunting and plinking. So an MSR is not an inaccurate statement.
You are probably right, and they may indeed "try". But I would wager that Congress would never have been able to pass a Modern Sporting Rifle ban. And the only reason that "assault weapon" is here to stay is because we allow a segment of the population to brand it that way without giving the public an alternative. It is simply too hard to explain to every single non-gun person out there the differences between a semi auto and an "assault weapon". What we have to do is to make the average (and that means not gun savvy) person think - oh, that is just a Modern Sporting Rifle. Had we not given the gun haters 20 years of using "assault weapons", my guess is that video game maker would be just as happy to label them Modern Sporting Rifles in their games.
OP
Vinney47
Member
But there is a huge problem. You can't look at a fully automatic M4 side by side with a carbine length AR-15 and tell the difference. Externally, there might be none except for the settings on the safety switch.
The fight, so to speak, is with the image, I think, and not with the name. A rose by any other name...
In discussions the argument I am now hearing goes something like "My right to not get shot at a movie theater, or a child's right to not get shot at school far outweighs your right to own an assault rifle". While there are many, many holes in that type of statement, the opponent may easily swap in MSR or modern sporting rifle for assault rifle and carry on in their argument.
Even "AR-15" as the term to be known by might not be enough. The question often asked "why do you need an AR-15?" could just as easily be "why do you need a modern sporting rifle?".
The point being, terms are interchangeable. Also, the legislation goes after a specific set of features - like the length of the gun, a folding/collapsible stock, ability to accept "high" (standard for AR-15) capacity magazines and so forth. The legislation may be known as "assault weapons ban" but again, with terms being interchangeable can just as easily be "modern sporting rifle ban".
It's the image and ensuing fear of the black, semi-auto, thirty round mag sticking out the bottom of the gun that we need to change. Heck, putting FDE/forrest green parts all over your gun so it's not all black just might be more helpful than a name change
Last edited:
hangnoose
Member
HUNTING WITH A MSR
Can't believe I haven't thought of it. here I've been hunting with shotguns and levers that are lighter/easier to carry in thick brush, faster handling and getting on target (for me), a great effective selection of easy to reload straightwalled cases from the 30-30 to 45-70, that have been very successful for 100+ years. I never knew me and the generations before have been doing it wrong. I do hunt with and like single shots and carbine length lightweight bolts. I don't want a detachable mag that can get lost/forgotten or bent/broken.
Can't believe I haven't thought of it. here I've been hunting with shotguns and levers that are lighter/easier to carry in thick brush, faster handling and getting on target (for me), a great effective selection of easy to reload straightwalled cases from the 30-30 to 45-70, that have been very successful for 100+ years. I never knew me and the generations before have been doing it wrong. I do hunt with and like single shots and carbine length lightweight bolts. I don't want a detachable mag that can get lost/forgotten or bent/broken.
I like it. It brings thoughts of me picking flowers and watching the tiny animals run around while my MSR is slung over my shoulder in the middle of a big beautiful field on a nice warm, sunny day.
Seriously, it is a good counter to the assault weapon thing.
Seriously, it is a good counter to the assault weapon thing.
We can't change the image, and we can't change some people from being afraid of that image. That is the reality of it. But we can change the name. As long as "assault weapon" is used every time they show a picture of a "scary" looking gun, more and more people will associate them as a negative thing. That is exactly what the dems had in mind when they came up with the name in the first place. And every time Modern Sporting Rifle is used while showing a picture of a "scary" looking gun, there is a chance (even if a minimal chance) that some people will start seeing them in less than a negative light. Using Modern Sporting Rifle as a description has no downside (that I can think of anyways), and it could possibly help.
A teacher of mine once said it is hard to learn something correctly after you've already learned it incorrectly. There are plenty of people out there that have learned it incorrectly, and there isn't much we can do about that. But there are millions of people that don't have an opinion yet. Would you rather they learn it as an "assault weapon", or as a Modern Sporting Rifle.
OP
Vinney47
Member
While you are right in that some people will always be afraid of the image, others can change their opinion. Lots of exposure to the AR-15 in a non-violent, non-aggressive manor is helpful to familiarize someone and remove that fear. It's happened with my wife and many other people in my close and extended family - including males. They've gone from being frightened to genuinely interested, changed their vocabulary from "scary" to "pretty cool". Gone from being nervous to be in the same room with the gun to wanting to hold it check to feel of the new grip or optic and want to know when we go shooting next.
It's not what you call it, but that you understand what it is. That's why I would advocate putting energy towards changing the image instead of what it's called. Getting the image changed on AR-15's is what will get "assault rifle" to fade away.
In thinking about this through the course of this thread, taking shooting mainstream is going to be the key, I think. Right now the image is of camo clad red necks forming militias in the backwoods, or trench coat wearing psycho's going on a murder spree. But think about skate boarding 30 years ago, or snow boarding 20 years ago. For punks, disrespectful dropouts and delinquents. Enter Tony Hawk and Shawn White, respectively. They changed the image of the sports and became household names. Same could be said about Lance Armstrong and biking, the advances he made in taking biking more mainstream endure even after the scandal and destruction of his personal name/legacy. Shooting sports needs a "face" like Hawk, White, or Armstrong to make firearms not so scary, and their firearm of choice needs to be an AR-15. Or even multiple faces like the Williams twins, Sharipova and Kournicova for tennis.
Something like THAT would do the most to dispel the "assault rifle" shenanigans. Bring the image out of obscurity, away from the backwoods and mass shootings and into the living rooms of people and I bet the fear and misunderstanding would mostly dissipate. The term "assault rifle" would either disappear or lose it's bite as a negative.
Of course, taking shooting mainstream won't help the ammo supply/demand issues we are experiencing...
Or... maybe I haven't had enough sleep....
I hate PC............
just think we've had the Browning Automatic Rifle since the .....20s ????, in semi-auto as a hunting rifle ....... no big deal..... just smaller mags.
If you want to be PC call it the "Stoner auto-loading Rifle" or "SAR"
I hate PCness
I have an old Bushmaster ( from about 2000)..... with a skeleton stock, folding back up sights, magpul handguard, bushmaster muzzle-break and 1-4 Leupold scope...... with a 10 round mag... half the people ask me "what is that"! LOL
just think we've had the Browning Automatic Rifle since the .....20s ????, in semi-auto as a hunting rifle ....... no big deal..... just smaller mags.
If you want to be PC call it the "Stoner auto-loading Rifle" or "SAR"
I hate PCness
I have an old Bushmaster ( from about 2000)..... with a skeleton stock, folding back up sights, magpul handguard, bushmaster muzzle-break and 1-4 Leupold scope...... with a 10 round mag... half the people ask me "what is that"! LOL
Last edited:
The simple fact is shooting is not ever going to be completely mainstream again. We might not like that, but the quicker we admit that it is our current reality the quicker we can all get on the same page and start preserving what we have left of the 2nd Amendment. Scary names hurt the image - whether it is a distortion of the item is completely irrelevant. I get that people don't like PC verbiage - but which do you like less... that verbiage or gun bans? We've made a little headway in some areas, and we've lost some ground in others. As far as this topic is concerned, can anyone give a valid reason why we shouldn't use Modern Sporting Rifle rather than "assault weapon" - or explain how doing so hurts us in any way? Because if you can't, then I just don't see the point of being against it.
gdauth
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 363
- Reaction score
- 165
Call it what you will, I call mine Liz.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
I've never referred to my AR as a Modern Sporting Rifle. I've never heard anyone at our rifle club say Modern Sporting Rifle.
If manufacturers, gun magazines and those discussing gun control issues want to use the term they can have at it, but it doesn't seem to be a widely used term around here. Course weuns in Tenn take a little longer to catch on to this newfangled stuff... gun pretty wells covers it.
If manufacturers, gun magazines and those discussing gun control issues want to use the term they can have at it, but it doesn't seem to be a widely used term around here. Course weuns in Tenn take a little longer to catch on to this newfangled stuff... gun pretty wells covers it.
Last edited:
The Last Standing Knight
Member
I call it for what it is, no matter its make. An AR-15 is still an AR-15. I sometimes scratch my head on all this newspeak. I even call AR-10's AR-15's even though I know they are different. Like a Smith and Wesson revolver...doesn't matter if it is a Model 10 or a Model 29....still a Smith and Wesson revolver. FTR: I don't hear the term "assault rifle" used that much except by the media and other unknowledgables. Everyone I know calls it what it is.
DigiRebel
Member
So does the term, "semi-auto rifle"
It also has the benefit of not being a contrivance and it accurately describes the weapon.
If we were going to use a term to counter the "assault" label then we'd need to come up with something thats not scary.
Maybe Fluffy Bunny Gun...
Until then I won't stoop to their level. Its an AR-15 or a SCAR, or whatever, unless I am talking about them as a group, then its semi-automatic rifle.
Playing the game on their terms isn't gaining us a lot of ground... or haven't you see the way they portray *US* in the media? last I checked I am apparently a blood thirsty redneck just looking for a reason to "stand my ground" to murder innocent baby-faced children who look just like certain political figures sons would have looked. Which is why when I argue guns, I WON'T use hyperbole, I won't come up with fluffy disarming names, and I won't pretend that a weapon is anything other than a weapon. (Though it CAN, and MOSTLY DOES get used in perfectly safe leisure time activities.)
DigiRebel
Member
"Not ever" is an awfully long time and public opinion is an awfully fickle thing. I wouldn't bet money that it will NEVER be popular again. Sure it may be a while, and maybe outside the scope of OUR lifetimes but speaking in absolutes is the surest way to be wrong.
The term "AR-15" is about as misused as the term "Assault Rifle". The AR-15 was first built by by ArmaLite as an assault rifle for the US armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt in 1959. Colt started selling the "semi-automatic " version of the M16 as the Colt AR-15 for civilian sales in 1963 and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since them. The name "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark.
The term "Assault Rifle" refers to ONLY those rifles capable of firing "full auto". Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three-round burst, depending on model.
Civilian Colt AR-15 models DO NOT have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector.
The term "Assault Rifle" refers to ONLY those rifles capable of firing "full auto". Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three-round burst, depending on model.
Civilian Colt AR-15 models DO NOT have three-round burst or automatic settings on the fire selector.
OP
Vinney47
Member
We both don't like the term "assault rifle/weapon" being applied to the AR-15 platform rifles. Gun owners calling it a "modern sporting rifle" is not going to ever change what opponents of gun rights call it. Ever. I've already detailed the reason for this being that you can not tell the difference between an actual, full auto M4/M16 assault rifle and a civilian AR-15 from the non-safety side of the rifle. You can't put them side by side on a table and tell the gun grabber "that ones is an assault rifle and that one is a modern sporting rifle. got it?" That just won't work. THAT is the reality we have to deal with.
And even if you could get the difference straightened out in everyone's mind and everyone is calling civilian versions MSR's, the politicians and people backing them who are going after guns don't care what it's called. To them a one round burst vs. a 3 round burst is splitting hairs. Calling one a different name than another just doesn't matter in this fight. It's not in the name. Look at California. I would argue thattheir laws limiting the AR-15 to 10 rounds with a bullet button put more of a difference between my M&P15 and their M&P15 than there is between my M&P15 and an M4. They have already taken what an AR-15 IS from Californians. You have to get people not to fear the 30 round magazine. Simply calling it a modern sporting rifle is fruitless.
If some of you can't figure out that public relations, and PC language is important in this fight, then I don't know what to tell you. I've yet to hear a single logical reason for why we shouldn't give an alternative to "assault weapons". I get it, some of you don't like to play at the same level as those that oppose us, it just doesn't make any sense to me - seeing as how that is where this fight is being played out. If it was up to me, for every time the words "assault weapon" were spoken on the floor of Congress by a non thinking representative, "modern sporting rifle" should be said twice by one who can. It can make a difference, unlike simply saying that you won't use PC terms or fight a PR war.
OP
Vinney47
Member
There does need to be PR war. The focus shouldn't be what the AR-15 is known by. More and more people now think that illegal immigrants need some path to citizenship, more and more sympathy for their situation. The change did not happen by calling them "undocumented workers". It came from stories of children being ripped from their deported mothers arms and families being broken apart. The image of who the illegal allien/undocumented worker is in the public mind changed, and with it the sentiment and how they need to be dealt with. Their image was humanized, de-villianized. Same with the gay rights movement - stories of individuals and couples saturating the media that personalized the message and brought out the humane aspect is what sways public opinion and discourse.
That's the type of change that needs to happen to AR-15's or Modern Sporting Rifles or whatever you want to call them. De-villianize them, humanize the owners. Change the focus from criminal use of guns to the sporting/self defense/competition aspect. What you call the rifle can play a part in it, but it's far from a wholistic solution. It's maybe one yard of the 100 needed for a touchdown, so to speak. Show people the amazing skill and talent that is in shooting competitions. Show the single mother who defended her child from a home invasion with an AR-15. Affect a change on the image of what a semi-automatic rifle means in the public eye and it won't matter what anyone calls it - assault rifle, modern sporting rifle or otherwise. My young nephew calls my M&P15 a "machine gun". Doesn't matter because he's not afraid of it.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 7,809
- Reaction score
- 7,255
YES! BTW, how is the vote being tabulated?
He who defines the terms, gets to direct the debate. Quite honestly, the appearance of traditional firearms hasn't changed much in 400 years. Largely because tradition is a strong force in the industry. The only areas where ergonomics has seriously affected firearms design have been in the esoteric target sports and military small arms.
Classic example: the pistol grip stock. A form of it is used in target and sniper rifles and the pure/AR form where a straight line stock is used to improve control of recoil. It's also a more ergonomic mating of the hand to the weapon. Yet, it's a "military feature" if it's on an "assault rifle". If you read the fine print in many proposed laws, the BS factor is recognized because pistol grip stocks on manually operated firearms are exempted.
We don't drive model T's, why should we be restricted to firearms designed in King Louis time? If we can use MSR to help define the debate and make the point to the general public that the AR type weapon is simply progress, fine and dandy.
He who defines the terms, gets to direct the debate. Quite honestly, the appearance of traditional firearms hasn't changed much in 400 years. Largely because tradition is a strong force in the industry. The only areas where ergonomics has seriously affected firearms design have been in the esoteric target sports and military small arms.
Classic example: the pistol grip stock. A form of it is used in target and sniper rifles and the pure/AR form where a straight line stock is used to improve control of recoil. It's also a more ergonomic mating of the hand to the weapon. Yet, it's a "military feature" if it's on an "assault rifle". If you read the fine print in many proposed laws, the BS factor is recognized because pistol grip stocks on manually operated firearms are exempted.
We don't drive model T's, why should we be restricted to firearms designed in King Louis time? If we can use MSR to help define the debate and make the point to the general public that the AR type weapon is simply progress, fine and dandy.
Last edited:
OP
Vinney47
Member
I made the survey. It's as simple as it looks. Two options, yes and no with "do you like the term" as the question. Pretty straight forward with as much as an absence of bias as you can get. I should have left the survey open definitely, however.
When this thread started I was in a grey area, not really liking the term but wanting to be convinced of it's usefulness. Through discussion and thought I've arrived at a point where I'm not opposed to the term but certainly unconvinced of it's usefulness.
In all honesty, I feel the AR-15 is closer to an "assault rifle" than it is to a "modern sporting rifle" (opinions will vary). I'm not in anyway saying we should go on calling it an assault rifle, let's be clear about that. modern sporting rifle just doesn't seem an accurate description of what it is either, I think we should just call it what it is.
Wasn't the "AR" actually derived from Armalite who developed the platform originally (which was then bought by Colt?) Anyway, it seems that only the dumbass liberals think that "AR" means "assault rifle" (just like our dumbass Governor Abercrombie who says they deliver a "lethal spray of bullets".... gotta have a very, very fast finger to spray from a semi-auto).
Ape Hanger
Member
I like all the terms that make Liberals uncomfortable. Evil Black Rifle, Assault Rifle, Evil Black Assault Rifle of Impending Doom, Destruction, and Mayhem. That last one is my favorite though.
SmokeStack Lightning
Member
While away from my booth at the range a lady started a conversation with "You are the one shooting the assault rife, right"?
I sez, "Nope, I'm the one shooting the Modern Sporting Rifle".
She sez, "What's the difference"?
I sez, "Terminology".
I sez, "Nope, I'm the one shooting the Modern Sporting Rifle".
She sez, "What's the difference"?
I sez, "Terminology".
Similar threads
