SMGs of course are “submachineguns” because they’re generally full auto like other machine guns, despite firing pistol-caliber cartridges. However, my question is, why are “automatic rifles” not simply called a different form of machine gun? Surely every SMG and LMG isn’t smoothbore right? Why aren’t “assault rifles” just called “intermediate machine guns” or something of the sort when they’re fully automatic just like SMGs?
In: 0
– There is no consistency for firearms designation. Depending on the year, the inventor and the country names are interchangeable. The same SMG is called a *machine pistol* (Germany, with machine pistol having a different meaning in other countries) or a *machine carbine* (UK … while a carbine is something different in Germany).
– SMGs were developed during WW1, where the standard firearm was still a normal rifle, but stationary machine guns became an important part of warfare. So the SMG was not compared to a rifle, but to a machine gun and its ammunition.
– Automatic / Assault rifles however are not machine guns. Machine guns are designed to be heavy, relatively immobile (compared to normal weapons) and able to sustain heavy fire for a long time which puts, contrary to Hollywood movies, a heavy strain on the weapon. The assault rifle has *in theory* the ability to sustain full auto fire, but the usual usage are quick single shots.
– The main advantage of an assault rifle is the quick rate of fire, compared to contemporary WW2 weapons (assault rifles were developed in the later stages of WW2), large magazine, while still being lightweight and mobile compared to machine guns.
It is simply a matter of timelines and the country involved.
SYL
Latest Answers