Flamethrowers???


PDA






Blain
July 31, 2003, 10:58 PM
Just been watching "Aliens" and I can't help but keep thinking how cool it would be to have a real live functioning flame thrower!

The flamethrower is the ultimate Close quaters combat weapon. However, what is the legality of this weapon? Is it legal to own one on any type of weapons license? If so, which one? If not, why? I don't see laws that specifically forbid such a device.


If it were legal, how much would it cost to buy one? What types of models are available? How far can they shoot their flames, and how long can they fire before refueling?

They shoot napalm, right?

If you enjoyed reading about "Flamethrowers???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Greg L
July 31, 2003, 11:12 PM
I think that the ATFE classifies them as DD (destructive devices) so yes it is possible to have them (don't forest firefighters use them to start backfires?). As an average Joe Shmoe though it is much easier to get a can of hair spray and a Bic lighter ;) .

Greg

Rafter-S
July 31, 2003, 11:13 PM
I don't know if they fall into the category of "firearm" but they sure would make a hit at the company barbque. ;)

Seriously, if you had a real flamethrower, I don't know where you would get the fuel. Trying to make the stuff could be dangerous.

Rafter-S

Hkmp5sd
July 31, 2003, 11:21 PM
Flame Throwers are not considered firearms, destructive devices nor are they regulated by ATF or the Federal Government. If you can find one, be sure to wear your asbestos underwear.

gun-fucious
July 31, 2003, 11:24 PM
http://www.howstuffworks.com/flamethrower.htm

Blain
August 1, 2003, 12:26 AM
Fuel is quite easy to make, all you need is sme gasoline and some white powdered detergent like "Tide". Mix together, and vuala!

TexasVet
August 1, 2003, 12:44 AM
Totally unregulated in most places and one of the scariest things you can strap on your back and set fire to!!!!
I understand they used to use them in West Texas to burn the spines off cactus so cattle could eat the pads.

Rafter-S
August 1, 2003, 12:52 AM
"Fuel is quite easy to make, all you need is sme gasoline and some white powdered detergent like "Tide". Mix together, and vuala!"

This may be fundamentally true...or it may not. In either case, I highly recommend not to play with gasoline. I have spent a lot of time in a burn unit of a major hospital and I can't start to describe to you how many people are in there because of gasoline accidents. Igniting gasoline has to be one of the most dangerous, not to mention, outright foolish, things one could do. DON'T DO IT.

Sir Galahad
August 1, 2003, 01:14 AM
Napalm is not so simple as adding detergent to gasoline. Napalm is jellied gasoline and naptha with a sticking catalyst, hence its sticking properties. The "Na" in napalm comes from naptha, yes, common lighter fluid, which is an ingredient. In some versions, palm oil was used instead of soap. Palm oil is a component in many soaps. Hence the "palm" in napalm. In you make ever so slightest the mistake with napalm and get it on your skin when it's burning, you may consider yourself screwed. Napalm is not something to play with; it's sticking properties are like you will not believe.

Flamethrowers are no longer used by the U.S. military for good reason. Those things are sniper magnets and present a danger to all around it. Seen that scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where the guy with the flamthrowers gets hit by machine gun fire and catches fire then blows up and takes out a couple other guys? That's based on a real incident at D-Day; it's mentioned in several books.

Sir Galahad
August 1, 2003, 01:18 AM
Oh, and the best way to deliver napalm is not a flamethrower. The best way is encased in steel perfectos from an A-1 Skyraider.

MrAcheson
August 1, 2003, 01:39 PM
Yes "pear burners" are used in texas to burn the spines off of prickly pear cactus so cattle can eat them. A great uncle of mine had one a while back. He also used it to burn out nests of rattle snakes that he found. I think they are more on the lines of a gaint gasoline torch than flame thrower however. I never got to see him use it unfortunately.

Hkmp5sd
August 1, 2003, 01:40 PM
The best way is encased in steel perfectos from an A-1 Skyraider.

Yea, but i doubt Blain has the extra room in his garage to store one. :)

Sunray
August 1, 2003, 02:32 PM
"...vuala!..." What? You mean 'voila?'
Flame throwers were more dangerous to the user than the bad guys. Never mind the one shot in the tank and whoosh. Crispy critter. It's the same idea as using lighter fluid to perk up the BBQ. The fire can back up the stream on fuel and the can goes whoosh in your hand. The fire squirter things used by forester aren't the same.

CWL
August 2, 2003, 07:56 PM
Flame throwers were more dangerous to the user than the bad guys.

:confused:

There are a lot of dead people in the battlefields if Europe, Africa and Asia who would argue against this statement. WWI onwards.

Fire has always been an effective morale-breaker. Whatever the fanatacism against dying thru gushot wounds, burning to death has a more fearful effect in the mind of any combatant.

Hkmp5sd
August 2, 2003, 08:07 PM
Fire has always been an effective morale-breaker. Whatever the fanatacism against dying thru gushot wounds, burning to death has a more fearful effect in the mind of any combatant.

That is because few people have been shot, but everyone has touched something hot and been burned at some point in their life. People remember the amount of pain that caused, so it's easy to imagine the horror of being totally consumed in fire.

Edited: Bad spelling strikes again.

MicroBalrog
August 2, 2003, 08:52 PM
What would be the range of one of these?

Hkmp5sd
August 2, 2003, 09:33 PM
The WWII M2-2 flamethrower had a range of 60 yards.

Sir Galahad
August 3, 2003, 02:02 AM
Sunray was correct. Again, the reason why the military no longer uses these is the danger to troops using it. There is a caveat to the use of fire as a weapon and that is the fact that fire knows not friends from foes. It can destroy the wielder as well as the target.

MicroBalrog
August 3, 2003, 04:49 AM
The WWII M2-2 flamethrower had a range of 60 yards.

OK, I want one.:evil:

C.R.Sam
August 3, 2003, 06:46 AM
If you want to enlarge your quarters.

Sam

Jeff Timm
August 3, 2003, 07:52 AM
I actually fired a flame thrower in training once. We were told everybody on both sides shoots at a flame thrower. Mostly they were used after battles to clean out stubborn people in fortifications. Flame throwers were replaced by incendiary rockets which have since been discarded. M202A1 four round launcher.

The Old West German Army had a "Patronnen Flambe" or flame cartridge. It was a metal tube filled with incendiary compound. The user pulled off the protective wrappings, pulled a pin, folded down a grip at the back, pointed it at a target 25 meters away, and pulled the trigger.

Geoff
Who found out shooting fire is an incredible experience, but I wouldn't want the nightmares that go with it.

Sir Galahad
August 3, 2003, 01:28 PM
Those who want flamethrowers: Be sure and visit the burn ward of your nearest major hospital before you buy one and see if it still tickles your fancy after that. You can't even get training in the military on this obsolete POS, so where are you going to find proper training on the civilian world? Training, you know, to avoid becoming a victim of your own weapon through an accident. But, I am sure "it won't happen to me" safety logic prevails...:rolleyes:

MicroBalrog
August 4, 2003, 06:46 AM
Sir Galahad: I'm sure training manuals are still available, also I know that the Forestry service has a use for them, and they do train their employees (those assigned with the thing) with their use. Therefore, the training probably IS still available.

Sir Galahad
August 4, 2003, 09:58 AM
There are books on how to do surgery, also. You think you can remove your own appendix using a book?:rolleyes: Further along, I see forest service crews here every day. I doubt you are going to join them just to learn how to use a flamethrower. The other work that precedes it is real, back-breaking work clearing brush, cutting trees, and so forth. Further most, if not all, of the "flamethrowers" they use are not WW2 types They're actually large oil cans like the cans they used to use to oil steam locomotives (I don't expect you've seen either one) and it has a pilot flame and drips burning fuel on the ground. I'm also sure playing with fire will be received real well in areas stricken by drought with tinderbox-dry forests and brushy hills. In this area, it's a good way to incite a lynch mob. Stick to firearms.

MicroBalrog
August 4, 2003, 10:05 AM
I'm also sure playing with fire will be received real well in areas
stricken by drought with tinderbox-dry forests and brushy hills

This relates to what exactly?


Besides, look at Knob Creek - LOTS of guys with flamethrowers. They know how to use them. They had to learn somewhere.

brownie0486
August 4, 2003, 12:09 PM
Most learned how to "not" use one by watching others mistakes.

The forest service doesn't use them, they use exactly what sir galahad described.

They would not be the ultimate weapon in my opinion for a few reasons. You are a target, they have a short range to them, they can backup and burn your butt, mixing the fuel is not safe for most, they are cumbersome to lug around, not easy to hid with one on your back, etc etc, etc.

Napalm=
Naptha and Palmetto oil.

Naptha from "Bril-cream"? -- the stuff your father used to use in his hair.
Palmetto oil-------------------- Ivory snow detergent, the flake kind, or liquid soap.

It will burn dirt, burn under water, about everywhere there is oxygen.

Saw it used in "70" a few times from the fighters above. Bad, real bad, and not something you want to be close to when they are using it.

Brownie

JShirley
August 4, 2003, 07:33 PM
White Phosphorus is still in use in (among other things) mortar rounds.

My squad burned 32,000 acres of WA real estate at Yakima Training Center with them, about 10 days ago. (13 rounds 81mm WP)

Upper-level chain of command will want to use the stuff in exercises, but we Charlies are reluctant to drop Willie Pete in any area the Bravos are going to be running through, since WP tends to start burning again if you kick it up for the first few hours. We are more willing to make exceptions on this for the occasional leadership-only live fire exercises. :D

John

Sir Galahad
August 4, 2003, 07:58 PM
Micro, what this relates to is that using one is not as easy as just heading out and doing it. This isn't your dad's shotgun. In this region, just using a tracer bullet is asking for a steep fine. Why? Heard of the Rodeo-Chediski Fire? Know how many people lost homes? That's the point I'm making. I thought it was quite obviously as written. But, perhaps not, evidently. But why listen to me? I only live in the Coconino Friggin' National Forest. :rolleyes: What would I know about the forest service?:rolleyes:

Kevlarman
August 5, 2003, 12:29 AM
:what:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2186457868&category=587

Sir Galahad
August 5, 2003, 12:51 AM
The guys so hot to trot, if you'll pardon the pun, on using a flamethrower as a CQB weapon should read the little story in that eBay listing about the NVA flamethrower man who ran up against a Marine with tracers and became a Roman candle. Yeah, great weapon there, guys. Most impressive. It kills you and makes your funeral pyre at once. Abso-frickin'-lutely a real must-have.:rolleyes:

Joe Demko
August 6, 2003, 04:27 PM
During WWII (The Big One), both the Russians and Germans used carrying the flamethrower as a punishment duty.
What everybody is losing track of here, though, is that Blain didn't ask about real honest-to-crispycritters flammenwerfers. He got a woody watching one of the Alien movies. The Hollywood ones he dreams of actually really are more like a pearburner or similar item than they are a military flamethrower. Whatever they fuel them with, it burns much too clean to be napalm and doesn't stick to anything. In fact, it looks so much like when a "fire eater" spits a mouthful of alcohol through a torch, that I'm willing to bet that they aren't much more than an alcohol spray.

Cosmoline
August 7, 2003, 03:12 PM
No question about it, as a weapon outside of total war, they're insane.

Think about it. Your flame may light the BG on fire, but it probably won't kill him right away and it may not stop him from shooting you. And, of course, every home is a tinder box. Now you've got a terribly injured bad guy AND a house on fire! I'll stick with buckshot, thank you very much :D

Hkmp5sd
August 7, 2003, 06:55 PM
Can you imagine what would happen to a soldier using a flamethrower that manages to survive a battle, but is forced to surrender? Probably would not get a very nice welcome by the friends of the crispy critters he just created.

Quartus
August 7, 2003, 07:16 PM
gun-fucious, PLEASE don't recommend anything on that idiot's site.


howstuffworks.com is a compendium of errors, and a great lesson in how you can make money without caring in the least about the quality of what you "sell"


It's crap on its good days.

carpettbaggerr
May 24, 2004, 10:32 PM
Uh oh, another zombie thread back from the grave

Hmmmm. Looks pretty good for something so simple. [Right click to download video -- save target as]

http://content.jengajam.com/flamethrwr.wmv


edted for mssng letters

Kevlarman
May 25, 2004, 12:33 AM
The link appears to be broken, but if it's about the super soaker / flamethrower, it has been posted here a few days ago.

Yes yes, it was stupid and dangerous, but I recreated it last night, using a super soaker filled with denatured alcohol:

http://img57.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Kevlarman/flame.jpg

http://img57.photobucket.com/albums/v173/Kevlarman/flame2.jpg

Navy joe
May 25, 2004, 01:51 PM
Think about it. Your flame may light the BG on fire, but it probably won't kill him right away and it may not stop him from shooting you.

Minor point; most all deaths attributed to flamethrowers came from asphxiation, not burning. Well, maybe burning lungs as you suffocate, but not for long. We tend to think of it as a gory death because of the aftermath, but most died quick. Some ran around for sure, "Screaming Alphas" in Navy fire parlance. ;) Travelling along with all that flame is a lot of almost totally oxygen deficient air. So, you did'nt even really need to get the flame all the way in a bunker or cave, just flame up whatever opening you could find. Casualties will be produced well past where the flame stops.

If you want to play around, please don't use gas. As a destructive little kid in the country I played with lots of gas and am glad I am still here. The good news is I learned a lot about fire which has helped me in the present WRT to fire prevention and fire fighting. The bad news is lots of kids and big kids don't make it so easily. I've been in a burn ward unrelated to gas and I'm here to tell you skin grafts suck, blow, and then some.

JShirley
May 25, 2004, 02:30 PM
Yup and yup. Good points.

John, plays with gas...carefully.

Chris Rhines
May 25, 2004, 10:00 PM
Touch off a flamethrower, and you've just created a giant flaming arrow, pointing right at you. Not the greatest idea if you've a hankering towards longevity.

- Chris

If you enjoyed reading about "Flamethrowers???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!