Talk:Fedorov Avtomat

Battle Rifle vs. Assault Rifle

Is this weapon a battle rifle, assault rifle, or both? Its cartridge, the 6.5 x 50 mm "Arisaka", is most certainly a lot less powerful than the Russian 7.62 x 54 mm, though its case length seems to suggest that it is still very powerful. Although its case is indeed long, from what I've seen in pictures, the casing itself is actually quite narrow, which would probably mean that its felt recoil would be closer to a stronger intermediate cartridge, like a 7.62 x 45 mm Czech. Thus, I beieve it would be better to classify this weapon as an assault rifle. CeeWhy2 03:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The 6,5x50 mm Arisaki seems less powerfull than the 7,62x54 mm R, and indeed the Japanese designed the 7,7 mm cardridge later on. But it still is a standard power cardrige, like contemporary Italian and Dutch 6,5 mm cartridges, and it's ballistics should not be underestimated. It's case is only one millimeter shorter than the 7,62x51 mm NATO cartridge that is a standard power cartridge by any standard. The Chech 7,62x45 mm cartridge was a failure as it was still too powerfull as an assault rifle cartridge. The VZ 52 rifle that used this cartridge was a self-loading rifle, and not an assault rifle. The VZ52/57 based on the same design but in 7,62x39 mm failed as an assault rifle. To qualify as an assault rifle, the gun has to fire an intermediate power cartridge, like the German 7,92x33 mm that started the trend, the Soviet 7,62x39mm, or the 5,56x45 mm NATO. Guns that fire more powerfull standard catridges are battle rifles (or automatic rifles when they have selective fire capability). Dutchguy 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The .280 British is universally regarded as an intermediate cartridge, and it has a muzzle energy of 2,700 J according to its Wikipedia article. The Arisaka has a muzzle energy of only 2,666 J when fired from an 800mm barrel, which would put it pretty close to the upper limit of what's considered "intermediate-power", and about 700 J too weak to be considered full-power. In addition to that, 800mm is considerably longer than both the 623 mm barrel length of the EM-2 rifle for which the .280 British was designed AND the 520 mm barrel of the Fedorov Avtomat, so 2,666 J is a gross overstatement of the Arisaka's power. In fact, if we look at the difference in Wikipedia's stated muzzle velocities between the Fedorov (654 m/s) and an Arisaka fired from an 800mm barrel (770 m/s), we can calculate that the Arisaka fired from a Fedorov would have a muzzle energy of (2666 x 654 / 770) = 2,264 J, which is VERY close to more common intermediate rounds like the 7.62x39mm Soviet round (2,100 J), and makes the Arisaka UNDISPUTABLY an intermediate-power cartridge. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)WDS

OK, two my pennies to the dispute.

1. .280 British aka 7×43mm. It's a bottlenecked intermediate cartridge. It's energy is above the two-six-six-six joule yet it's still "intermediate".
2. EM-2 rifle aka Janson rifle was designed for .280 British rounds, yet's it's an "assault rifle"

81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's an assault rifle; see Assault Rifle by Max R. Popenker and Anthony G. Williams, as well as their respective websites. When deciding if a cartridge is intermediate-energy (Intermediate-power is a misnomer.), look at its muzzle energy, not its caliber or length. Even if you compare lengths in the absence of ME data, you certainly should not compare cartridges using completely different generations of propellant as Dutchguy did, and the caliber is generally more relevant than the cartridge length. The 6.5×50SR cartridge, like the Czech vz52, which failed only because Czechoslovakia was forced to adopt the Soviet-standard M1943, was intermediate-energy. Ergbert 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked their muzzle energies. The 7.62x54R, a popular full-sized cartridge of the day, produces 3,960 joules of energy at the muzzle. The Fedorov Avtomat's 6.5 Arisaka produces approximately 2,600 joules of energy at the muzzle. This is compared to the 6.5 Grendel, an intermediate cartridge for the AR-15, which produces between 2,255 and 2,550 joules, depending on bullet weight. 2,550 vs. 2,600... That's pretty damned close by any standard. Something with the kind of energy of the 6.5 Arisaka is certainly closer to being intermediate than to being a full-sized rifle cartridge. CeeWhy2 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

While I have added this to the article think should also add here: given an actual muzzle velocity of 660m/s, the calculation for bullet energy is 0.5*.009*660*660 = 1960J. The Federov is not a Type 30.Corella (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think of the Fedorov Avtomat as a light automatic rifle (the term "battle rifle" does not really mean much). Although somewhat lighter than most full-size military rounds, I would still consider the 6.5 a full-size round. The concept of "assault rifle" was pretty much tested, developed and put into mass production with the Maschinenkarabiner/Sturmgewehr system. I know there were odd prototypes here and there, and the Fedorov has some assault rifle characteristics, but the StG defined the genre, so to speak. Let me pose this question - if we started referring to certain kinds of rifles as "sport-utility rifles," would we go back and retroactively rename all past designs?

Yes, we totally would. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)WDS

Weird unsigned post that's like saying Mauser C-96 pistol is the first semi-auto pistol ever by labelling both Borchardt C-93 or Schönberger-Laumann 1892 rarities as super-small rifles. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

PS I don't agree at all with using a comma in the caliber designation. In both American and British English usage it is common to use a dot to express the decimal point, regardless of how it is done in German, Dutch, French etc. When I write in German, I use the comma. In English, I use the standard decimal point. Twalls 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I would. It's the same as calling ancient Egyptians human; the word didn't exist back then, but obviously they fit the definition. Furthermore, even if I can't convince you I'm right, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so until you can provide something from a more reputable author than Popenker and Williams, I'm restoring the assault rifle text. Ergbert 05:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, but in the case of the Fedorov it always seemed to me that the intended role was as a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) or LMG substitute (not unlike the BAR). Popenker states that this was the Red Army's intention, but he does make the case for it being the first practical assault rifle. I won't quibble over this designation, though -- I'll let you guys do that. I do however feel quite strongly that the caliber designation should use the decimal point, not the comma. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style ... "The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901 — contrary to Continental style." Twalls 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The avtomat is a battle-rifle, however, Fedorov himself envisioned it being made for a special intermediate round he developed. Due to WW1, addition of new ammo to the Russian army was not an option, so the plentiful and light arisaka round was chosen instead. In essence, the avtomat was an assault rifle that had to be degraded for mass-production. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

>2007

Obsolete claim. Discarded. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The 6.5x50mm Arisaka is virtually identical to the 7.62 NATO, yet the FAL and G3 aren't (incorrectly if you ask me) categorized as assault rifles on Wikipedia. --Philip Laurence (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both wiki links lead to "battle rifles". And that is what the avtomat was; however, Fedorov initially wanted to develop his own intermediate round. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Virtually identical" except for being about a thousand joules less powerful... 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)WDS

I would just like to point out that in all the other places I have seen this rifle, it is referred to as an assault rifle. Also the Russians chambered it in 6.5 jap because it was noticeably less powerful then their rifle round, with ballistics resembling an "intermediate" cartridge. It was deigned to fill the roll of an assault rifle, and as my reading has indicated was used as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.234.128 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say this is not an assault rifle as the caliber was not designed to be intermediate nor is it the size of any caliber designed to be intermediate. If this is to be considered an intermediate caliber I'd say that makes the Type 11 and 96 LMG's also assault rifles. I'd fit this in the exact same position as the BAR M1918 as a light machinegun. What made the MP 43/StG 44 the first instead of this is that the 7.92 mm Kurz wasn't the same as the 7.92 Mauser put in an automatic rifle but a purpose-built round like more modern 6.8 SPC used in a modern assault rifle. The fact that the round was underpowered only means the Japanese standard may not have been as powerful like 303 British is considered weaker than the 30-06 Springfield. As for the role it was designed, the M1 Carbine was designed for the role of an assault rifle and the .30 Carbine appears to be classified as an intermediate caliber, thus making at least the M2 and M3 Carbine technically assault rifles despite the round being straight-walled rather than bottlenecked like most intermediate calibers. I'd say it's not an assault rifle, but it's hard to tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.168.225 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You won't have a case even if Fyodorov Avtomat was designed in Japan. If the whole world was using low-powered ammunition, battle rifles would not exist as a class. For the BAR comparison - [1]. Now, if Fydorov Avtomat was a squad support weapon, why would a squad support weapon need a... squad support weapon version of itself?! :retarded smiley:

P.S.: Wikipedia is not a place for original research - all top Russian sources name it "an assault rifle". G_PViB (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Only because "avtomat" came to denote intermediate cartridge assault rifles in the late 1940s. Use of the term "avtomat" was ambiguous before the AK-47. If you watch any wartime Soviet propaganda movies, you'll see that they also used "avtomat" to denote sub-machineguns, such as the PPSh. (The documentary Отечественное Стрелковое Оружие has some relevant footage in episode 2.) I've added something about the terminology and intended use; there's more material available in those sources. Here's the quote from Fedorov: "Вспоминая историю создания автомата, Федоров писал: «Непосредственным толчком к изобретению автомата было изучение боевого опыта первой мировойвойны. В той войне особое значение впервые получили ручные пулеметы... Вопрос о необходимостиразработки ручного пулемета на основании опыта войны явился в высшей степени актуальным... Единственным выходом при тех условиях конструирования оружия, которые имелись в царской России,могла быть только переделка моей автоматической винтовки. Ее нужно было переделать в тип оружия, приближающегося до некоторой степени к пулемету, а именно в тип ручного ружья-пулемета, как было первоначально названо это оружие»." I need to add more about the related machine guns on 6.5 mm he and his disciples made. There seems to be nothing about those in Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the 2008 book Пулеметы русской армии в бою by Семён Федосеев TOC has a chapter under the original designation of the gun "«ручного ружья-пулемета» Федорова". Since ружья-пулемета denoted light machine guns like the Madsen even back in WWI, the added "ручного" (light) shows that the Fedorov avtomat was considered to be in an even lighter class than LMG by its users. There's a passage about this: "V отдел Арткома в журнале № 381 от 6 сентября 1916 г., отнеся оружие Федорова к особому классу «ручных ружей-пулеметов», заключил, что кроме авиации «означенные ружья с пользой могли бы быть употреблены и на бронированных автомобилях, в особенности пушечных, где нет возможности поставить пулемет… Автоматическая винтовка Федорова могла бы быть использована для полевой позиционной войны как вооружение пехоты»." The prefix poses a translation problem for the resulting term to Englsih; literally it would be "light light machine gun". Perhaps "super-light machine gun" is an appropriate translation for ручного ружья-пулемета»? Anyway, that book has perhaps the most detailed history of the Fedorov I have found. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is also complicated in that "Assault" isn't officially used in Russian terminology, Automatic Rifle is preferred. Automatic Rifles are split into First and Second Generation. First Gen Automatic Rifles are equivalent to our Automatic Rifle (such as a BAR) and automatic Battle Rifles (FN FAL), while Second Generation are equivalent to our Assault Rifle (an AK-47). That said, the Russian article for the Federov calls it a "distant predecessor if current generation automatic rifles", or in layman's terms; an Assault Rifle. That said, I vote we keep the current classifications. Mr. Someguy (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

About comparison and division into generations::::::: M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) is too heavy and has too powerful ammo. BAR is open-bolt (and caannot an accurate single shot), as like LMG. Fedorov Avtomat use close-bolt principle, as like regular ass.rifles. The principle of "generations" can be objectively applied only to ergonomics, to isolate a STG44-like weapons with an accurate single shot, and weighing about 4kg.Halfcookie (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Russians use word "avtomat" for non-Russian automatic rifles as well. Deutsch-derived "shturmovaya vintovka" phrase is used sometimes, but... you see, Russians would use that phrase for FN FAL and other 7,62x51mm guns as well (found in "Vokrug Sveta" magazine in some article). 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Seriously??? An attempt label 1916 "avtomat" rifle as a "machine gun" by disregarding its specs? That's too humanitarian. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article needs a photo

As the title says, this article needs an actual photo of this weapon, preferably in colour. There are a few photos on http://world.guns.ru of this weapon, but those are probably copyrighted. Are there any non-copyrighted photos on the intertubes, or will we have to claim fair use? 124.177.110.215 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I found photo without copyrights [2], but i don't know how load their. Can anyone tell me how i can do it or load photo by himself? AWND (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice if someone could get a figure for the weight of this rifle.Corella (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Full Stop/Period vs. Comma

The Manual of Style quite clearly states that "The Wikipedia rule for commas and periods in numbers is, for example 12,345,678.901—contrary to Continental style". Now, although these cartridges are often referred to using commas in their countries of origin (7,92x57mm instead of 7.92x57), this is the English Wikipedia, not the German or Russian Wikipedia. Out of the 4 biggest countries where English is the primary language: Canada, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, none use Continental style as the primary style (as far as I know). Additionally, since no other cartridge articles use Continental style for their designations (See here and here, for example), this article should be no different - the 6.5mm Arisaka and 6.5mm Fedorov should be written out according to the standard of the Wikipedian Manual of Style, not in Continental Style. CeeWhy2 00:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese do not use Continental style - they use the period as the decimal seperator. Even if they did, it is correct to write the caliber designation in this article with a period, as this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, as you correctly point out, CeeWhy2. Thanks, Twalls 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MG-15 magazine?

WP:DNFT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does the picture of the Fedorov Avtomat have a German MG-15 magazine in it?? The MG-15 wasn't invented until the 1930s. Every picture I have seen of the Fedorov with a detachable magazine shows the same magazine. There is one picture I've found that shows 3 different versions of the Fedorov, all with the MG-15 magazine. Interestingly enough the magazine release is in front of the magazine on one, behind the magazine on another and completly missing from the third. And even stranger is how far each magazine is loaded into the gun, the first has it all the way in, the second half way out and the third only the magazine lips are inserted into the magazine well. Some sort of cheap attemtp at making each model look like each has a larger magazine capacity than the other? IMHO, most of the information about the Fedorov Avtomat is soviet propaganda to reinvent history. Is it mentioned/shown anywhere before the AK-47 became known? period photos(plural), picutre from an armory or mueseum, newspaper article, a book, a video, is there even a patent filing? When exactly did the rifle first become known anywhere? ZURAK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.85.188 (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Hey, maybe you're trying to brainwash? Many Germans, including living in different regions of the world, after the defeat in WWII experience feel a loser and trying to distort history. Would like to note that the Germans were not so advanced and high-tech, stole soviet technology, inventions, Jewish scholars, etc. Also need to understand that there is also an anti-Soviet propaganda that distorts any fact in any field. Soviet propaganda has long been in the past, all the Soviet archives have long been declassified, but that documents such as the U.S., are still not disclosed, but anti-Soviet propaganda continues. Probably a lot of money that was invested in the propaganda machine of the Cold War in the U.S., have generated enormous corruption lobby and this rusty machine continues сreaking to work and today :) 89.189.191.5 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) ROFL, love the insinuation that I'm an anti-soviet neo-nazi propagandist for noticing that the weapon is equipped with a german magazine. Or are you saying that ISN'T a german magazine? Wiki is supposed to require sources listed for info that is posted, yet it isn't. I've never seen any sources listed for most of the supposed information about this gun, wiki or not. Asking for such info isn't propaganda, it actually prevents propaganda from being posted. And NO, not all soviet archives have been declassified. Where did you get that idea?? ZURAK --98.215.13.2 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record since nobody bothered to provide an actual answer: while the Avtomat magazine looks like an MG13 magazine, it is not dimensionally similar to it and it is impossible to modify one so it fits in the other. Forgotten Weapons has a side-by side comparison of an Avtomat magazine to one from an MG13. Most likely the Avtomat magazine was inspired by the one used by the contemporary Mauser Selbstlader, pre-production versions of which existed at the time.

As for magazines having different fittings, one of the reasons the Avtomat was only issued with one magazine was the Russian stamping industry just wasn't up to mass-production with strict dimensional tolerances (it still wasn't in the late 40s, which is why they had to switch to milling for AK receivers until the AKM). As a result, all Avtomats had their magazine hand-fitted to the magwell: the magazine from one gun wouldn't necessarily even fit into another. The Chauchat had similar problems of spare parts for one gun not necessary being able to be used on another of the same model.

And to be honest if it were Soviet propaganda they would have credited themselves with actually inventing the assault rifle concept, rather than issuing it as a light machine gun to a two-man team and only providing one magazine per rifle that had to be reloaded with stripper clips. Bones Jones (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Оружие 1999/4

The full text of the article cited has been posted in HTML version here. I'm not adding the link to the wiki article because they only credit the original author, but not the publication, which makes me suspect it might be reprinted without permission. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Proper name of the weapon

I still cannot understand the twisted logic behind the "Fedorov Avtomat". It makes absolutely no sense at all. Firstly, if the rifle's designer is Fyodorov (Фёдоров) then why is his design reffered to as "Fedorov" or "Federov". I could honestly understand the "Federov" as sometimes Fyodorov's surname was spelled Фeдоров out of ignorance or lack of education on Russian side, but "Federov" is invention of english-speaking writers and their ignorance. Secondly, if "Автомат Калашникова" is transliterated as "Avtomat Kalashnikova" (Kalasnikov's Automatic), and not as "Kalashnikov Avtomat" (and same goes to Nikonov's and Sudaev's rifles) then how come in case of Fyodorov's design it is completely different breaking from the used naming conventions of "Avtomats". KitFistoPL (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You have seen what the English language did to the name of Russia's capital, right? Bones Jones (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

0. What about *ANGRY SUOMI NOISES*?

1. Russian: "Автомат Фёдорова"
2. Note the umlaut in "ё", that's due a certain Russian empress borrowing that Nordic "Ö";
3. Unlike langue française, Russian language doesn't have weird rules like "spell "oi", yet say "uwa";
4. Russian words and names are supposed to be transliterated "as is";
5. Ergo: the English tra-ate for "А-в-т-о-м-а-т Ф-ё-д-о-р-о-в-а" would be "A-v-t-o-m-a-t F-yo-d-o-r-o-v-a".

81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fedorov Avtomat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602021550/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm to http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

a notice

from 1913 to 1915 it was the production of the second prototype semi automatic version and from 1916 to 1925 it was the production of the second prototype automatic version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.95.26.168 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Crew Served?

A "crew served" weapon requires more than one soldier to operate it, like a belt-fed machine gun that requires at least another soldier to carry and feed ammunition to the weapon in order for it to be used. This weapon is clearly NOT of that type. Even Wikipedia thinks so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew-served_weapon

It was issued to a two-man crew, being a gunner and a loader/ammo carrier. Your definition is lacking since the modern US military considers sniper rifles to be crew-served weapons as they are issued to a two-man team (sniper and spotter). Bones Jones (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a good trick to group together assault rifles and MGs, IMO... Профессор кислых щей (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Practical"

"At the time of its use, the Fedorov Avtomat was one of only three practical fully automatic rifles in service, the other two being the American M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle and the French Chauchat." I think this is not just subjective, but also conjecture, ignoring the Lewis Gun from Britain, as well as the Madsen Machinegun from Denmark, both which pre-date the Fedorov.81.227.20.48 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• the BAR from 1918 has the ergonomics of a rifle; you can see how it looks like a bigger, bulkier ancestor of the FN FAL. It's really questionable with the Chauchat, but ok, plausible. But Lewis gun has a huge barrel, making it hard to use while standing upright. EDIT: the Fyodorov-1916 is even more ergonomic, as it has a nice wooden "extension", that could have been useful in modern rifles: it allowed WWI users to wear thick gloves long before modern "tactical" gloves with fingertip-cuts were a thing. I would DEFINITELY refuse to group a "normal rifle looking" gun like Fyodorov (or Cei-Rigotti, for that matter) together with a Lewis gun. Профессор кислых щей (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the Chauchat was also too bulky to be a "rifle" in the modern meaning of the word. It was a full-blown LMG. Ironically, short, "sawn-off"-like Chauchat was the gun that was first labelled as "pistol machinegun", a term used in Russia for SMGs. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 opinion

OK, I am fine with "Still other writers argue that the Cei-Rigotti (which predates the Fedorov by 20 years) was the world's first assault rifle" part. After all, Italians had Girardoni air rifle in 1780s, long before metal casings were even a thing. But I don't like the "superior German engineering" meme. There are bait claims Sturmgevehr was straight-up copied by the Soviet people.

That's why I made an "even earlier automatics" section, just in case. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, why the author of the article on XM7 keeps slapping "unsourced"/"WP:OR" labels on my edits? (Inb4 "it IS unsourced").My edits rely on information that have already been documented. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Comparing the calibers

Sometimes, a term battle rifle is used to tell .308/7.62x51 (FN FAL) or 7.62x54R (AVS-36) or 7.92x57 (FG-42) autos apart from 7.62x39 (AK-47 and its family) and 5.56x45 (AR-15 family, M-16) assault rifles. However, the 6.5x50mm Arisaka cartridge lies somewhere in between.

• There are cartridges like 7x43mm ".280 British", 6.5mm Grendel and .277 Fury; where the latter is used for the modern American XM7 rifle, believed to be an "assault rifle". Maybe it's a WP:OR to say so, but that's kind of cute how Fedorov Avtomat-like guns are "back on the menu". Профессор кислых щей (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• If XM7 can be considered an assault rifle, then there is no reason Avtomat Fedorova cannot be considered one, it having a lower powered cartrige and with intended use very similar to modern Assault rifles. I am not even talking about the fact it is called Avtomat, a term now meaning assault rifle. F.Alexsandr (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleting a sourced claim per WP:OR

According to this link - https://web.archive.org/web/20140602021550/http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm - "it can be argued"

Excerpt from the article:

It can be argued that neither the Cei-Rigotti nor the Federov Avtomat used "intermediate" cartridges, as the 6.5mm Carcano and Arisaka were the front-line rifle/MG rounds in the Italian and Japanese armies respectively. This is true, but it is worth bearing in mind that, in terms of calibre and muzzle energy, they were in the same class as the present-day 6.8x43 Remington SPC and 6.5x38 Grendel, which are today regarded by many as ideal intermediate cartridges for assault rifles.

The emphasis is mine. I do believe it is a reference.

A possible reason it's argueable

A smokeless gunpowder round with the muzzle energy of X and the of caliber of Y does belong in a literal weight category of Z.

It is an unpleasant practice to imply it's rather A, using old sources that refer to "alpha" or "aleph", but it would make sense for sophisticated devices. However, a gun cartridge is a very simple and very conservative invention, that has no traits to research; unless summing up 2 plus 2 is "re5earch" as well. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)