YOU FUCKING WON'T. Reread again! Keep rereading until it gets through your skull. The FAL and your Canadian copy are classified as battle rifles. Arms manufacturers and militaries don't stamp that detail.
Get it through your head that military nomenclature refers to M14, M16, Garands, 03s, whatever, simply as "Service Rifles". Official nomenclatures DON'T refer to them as "assault rifles" or "battle rifles". Just because cheesy politicians and other fools use the term doesn't mean that it's correct. However, you're welcome to keep your head tucked firmly in your ass.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/24/firearms-semantics-battle-rifle-assault-rifle/
As that article and comments display, our semantics can be argued incessantly.
You may be right that "battle rifle" may never have been officially used in US military doctrine, but it has been used in Russian parlance.
Once again: Fuck the propagandists and how they use terms for their agenda. So ok, the military never used the term "battle rifle". What matters is many circles in the firearms industry and hobby currently share the consensus that it's a clear, useful definition.
Yeah, and a guy traveling at "warp speed" on a motorcycle is useful for describing someone hauling ass on a bike because it's part of the vernacular. Same for your "assault guns" and "battle rifles". You can say it's useful but technically bullshit.
Right, we're back to "everybody is saying/doing it" so it must be right. Get it through your head, there was only ONE, (1) rifle ever officially designated an "assault rifle". "Battle rifles/assault guns" may be in general use as a part of the vernacular but technically they're bullshit. In the vernacular we have "big rigs" but their actual definition is Class 8 tractors/trucks. Yes, there's a difference between a tractor and a truck even though they're both referred to as "big rigs".
(post is archived)