search
top

It’s a Service Rifle

Kevin points out that Tom Gresham wants to find a different name for the AR-15.   Well, there’s a class of high-power competition where the AR-15 belongs, which is called service rifle competition.  Why not call it that?  I also agree with Kevin on “semi-automatic rifle” but I’ll one up him and say “self-loading rifle” since a lot of folks have no idea what semi-automatic means.

Ah.  I thought I was having deja vu writing this.

6 Responses to “It’s a Service Rifle”

  1. Sailorcurt says:

    The only problem I see with the term “service rifle” is that it is referring to military service which feeds right into what the anti’s are trying to do…i.e. imply that these rifles are designed for military use and are, therefore, unsuitable for civilian ownership.

    That term, as used in high powered rifle competitions, isn’t even accurate as very few if any of the “service rifles” used in the competitions are actually rifles that would be used in military service. They are just similar to actual military service rifles.

    AR-15s are not rifles that have ever been used in military service, nor are M1As. those two variants are semi-auto civilianized versions of the M-16 and the M-14…which could correctly be called “service rifles”.

    The M1 Garand is approved for use in “service rifle” competitions and it was actually used by the military services…half a century ago. They were never capable of select-fire or fully automatic operation, so they are perfectly fine for general civilian use in original military issue configuration…however, the ones used in “service rifle” competitions are generally modified to meet “national match” standards and so even those are not truly “service rifles”.

    I personally am partial to the term “utility rifle” in that they have great utility for use in a number of different roles.

    I also like the term “defense rifle” (alternatives being, homeland defense rifle, civil defense rifle or citizen defense rifle) as a direct counter to the “assault rifle” term…but that still implies that they are only useful for military/militia actions so “utility rifle” is probably much better for our purposes.

    I’m not sure whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing that the discussion has devolved into disputes about semantics. It seems like a bad thing because of the patent ridiculousness of it…but it also seems like a good thing because…well…that’s the best the anti’s can come up with???

  2. Sebastian says:

    I don’t really think it’s a dispute, so much as trying to decide what to call it. Personally, I just use “rifle” when I talk about my AR-15 generically.

  3. Ahab says:

    I am still throwing my weight behind “Poodle Shooter” or “PSH Inducer”.

  4. Guav says:

    I was going to say what Sailorcurt said—calling it a service rifle conflates it with the military, which is what I assume we’re trying to move away from by renaming it.

  5. Sebastian says:

    Very true, but a 1903 Springfield is also a service rifle.

  6. Alcibiades says:

    A Dugout Defender.

    Or a Plastic Plinker.

    Or a Politically Incorrect Rifle.

    Or an Equal Rights Enabler.

    Or a Very Small Percentage of Crimes are Even Committed with Rifles Rifle.

top