ALL prior service were trained to use full auto m16's with high cap magazines

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tirod

Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
5,290
Location
SW MO
How many millions? Every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is trained to use the M16 or a variant, and issued high capacity magazines. Millions. I tried to estimate how many, it ran over 20 million if you included the M14's.

One source - the number of veterans: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/veteranscensus1.html

We currently train over 800,000 a year in basic alone.

And nobody is talking about it.

Why? We need to make more of it - millions trained at OUR expense to Government standards to fire a fully automatic weapon and/or with large magazines, and trained on more than one in many cases.

Let's see, M9, M16 and A1 and A2, M60, M249, M2, M17, not countintg the Dragon, TOW, M72 LAW, STINGER, and REDEYE. Grenades and the Claymore, too.

Just one list I am acquainted with, doesn't include single stacks and personal weapons. And like a lot of others, I may not be in service any more, but I haven't suddenly become less capable and a danger to society. (At least I haven't started my kit car project. :D )

Add the millions of police, deputies, and all the training they get using firearms. I hear the local PD practicing with M16's - full auto - on Sundays after I get off work. On loan from Uncle Sam.

We're getting completely left out of the conversation, and it's really beginning to annoy me. Who said we can't handle a semi auto AR with a 20 round mag? Kid's rabbit rifle compared to the some of the other stuff.

Ooohhh, wait a minute, I get it, it's all a grandstand show, folks. Balance and common sense aren't part of this act. We're not talking statesman, it's Illinois politics, and that's the dirtiest politics in the USA. Good old Chicago.
 
Your point is what i usually use as my closing argument to the "only cops and military" nonsense.
"Ok, only people trained in the military; that's me and him and him and about 30 million other citizens."
 
You're correct, and have every right to be angry.

But don't discount us good old boys who didn't serve, even the ones trapped in downstate Illinois (e.g. occupied territory).

Some of us know how to shoot very well. :)
 
Trent said:
You're correct, and have every right to be angry.

But don't discount us good old boys who didn't serve, even the ones trapped in downstate Illinois (e.g. occupied territory).

Some of us know how to shoot very well. :)
Click to expand...
Very true, and my comments certainly aren't meant to discount anyone else's civilian experiences. My point is only that even if they restrict ownership to those few special people who've received all that wonderfully perfect government training (sarcasm face?) we still have 30 million of us. Point=ridiculousness.
 
I was trained with the M-16 and standard capacity magazines, thank you very much.

Standard capacity for the armed forces is 30 rounds.

I consider a Beta mag to be high capacity, and we never used those. If we wanted that many rounds, get a belt fed.
 
I bought a brown paper grocery sack half full of GI issue 30 round M-16 mags for $15 bucks 5 years ago at a garage sale.
About $.75 cents a mag!

They still had Ft. Bragg red clay dust in them!

The garage sale guy was a just retired Army officer who had just moved to town.


It could be a new cottage industry for returning GI's I betcha!

Wonder what they are going to do about that??

rc
 
Weeeeelllll. The stamp on the mag says "LEO/militray use only" right? Most of are in the military...the militia. Albeit unorganized.
 
Yep, me too, 1970's, USAR, M16A1, though we had 20 round magazines. I was a signal corps communications chief, but even I had to qualify with my rifle - I think it was true in most branches of service regardless of MOS.

They are grossly underestimating just how many veterans there are with an AR. But of course they would have no idea... because not many veterans are Democrats, and I doubt many veterans believe gun control is a good idea either.
 
You guys better knock this off. It just isn't polite to go around interjecting common sense into the circus that has been ginned up for our entertainment.

The problem with debating this way is one of familiarity. Let's say you were prior service (me too, USN) and having this debate with a friend or relative. You are familiar to them, so not included in this mythical class of "military and police only". I went through this with my own granddad a few days ago. The "highly trained" argument came up. Expert rifle and Pistol medals came out of the dresser drawer. No effect, because the "military and police have real life experience". He seems to not remember all the letters sent home from crappy places around the planet. It's because I'm familiar and therefore not part of a mythology they like to believe in.
 
I get angry with the pundits who keep repeating the "only the military and law enforcement are trained" line. I had 17 years of military training, a little over 14 of it in the Infantry. Yet as soon as I'm out, I'm not trusted to own an AR-15.

What about when I was 20 year old specialist who was in charge of hundreds of M-16s, grenade launchers, belt fed MGs, and the like. I must say that today I am much more mature, but now I'm not to be trusted with a semi auto rifle?
 
Miltary /LEO mags were COMMONLY sold to everyone right after 94, they had their stocks built up, and simply opened the gates wide on the warehoused inventory.
 
I'm a volunteer RSO at a local shooting range near an Air Force Base. Many of our rifle shooters own ARs and come practice with them regularly because in a worse case scenario where they have to drop their tools and grab their rifles they want to be proficient with them and the Air Force only has them fire them once per year and with a limited amount of ammunition. That's one of my closing arguments and one of the obvious arguments I wish our "Point Person", if we had one, would make.
 
Let's remember that less than 10% of the entire population of the US has even been in the military.

Not as common as one would think.
 
I was in the USAF Security Police trained with full auto M16, riot shotgun and pistol. I really resent the current government ignoring the reality of my training and treating me like an errant child. There needs to be truth and sanity in the discussion of firearms and the government needs to deal with reality. I have never been a threat to them or anyone else. I have seen the stockpiles of weapons they have. With their weapons they can threaten the entire world and yet they want me disarmed of my semi-autos? The next time we vote, people had better do some serious reflection because it is clearer than ever that elections have consequences.
 
Outstanding observation!

That's a kick-ass response to the tired old "... only in hands of properly trained..." rhetorical argument about qualifications relative to ownership.

I wish I'd though of it.
 
There is another area in the gun debate where I tend to bring up veterans. When the anti's start saying teachers and staff "wouldn't know how or when to use a weapon." Or "wouldn't want to be 'forced' to learn." Totally discounting the fact that MANY of today's teachers are vets. I know, I have been both.

And it gets even better when you think about it. My time in service was 85-93. I was lucky enough that I was never sent into combat. When I entered the Army in 85, my first unit still had some NCO's and officers who had served in Vietnam. But by 93, it seemed like somebody with actual combat stripes on their dress uniform was rare. That has all changed now. We not only have lots of vets, we've got lots and lots of combat experienced vets. Some of them with 3-4 or even more tours of duty in combat zones. These combat vets are a precious resource in lots of ways. They certainly could become teachers or coaches or vice principals... and carry a gun every day. If something bad happened, if a 16 year old showed up with a gun... you really expect me to believe that these vets would somehow "panic" and not be able to handle the situation? I don't believe it!

Gregg
 
Well, yes and no.

US Air Force retiree here. Came in a few years post Vietnam.

I did indeed qualify with an M16 (with .22 LR adapters) in basic training. I think the adapters held something like 10 rounds (long time ago, can't recall for sure). Anyway, we fired 55 rounds. After cleaning and reassembling the weapon, our instructor had us point the unloaded weapons upward, move the selector to auto, and pull the trigger. "Now you can tell everyone you fired an M16 on full automatic", he said.

I qualified yearly with .22LR in the M16 for the first 5 years (again, 55 rounds on semi-automatic).

Then to save money, they had us only qualify if we deployed or went overseas.

Somewhere down the road, the .22 LR adapters got to be more expensive to maintain than real .223 ammo, so I got to qualify with real ammo once.

The last 4 years of my 20 year career, I did not have to qualify.

Though I retired with both rifle and pistol marksmanship ribbons, I never carried a weapon in the line of duty (outside of qualifying) in 20 years.
 
Let's remember that less than 10% of the entire population of the US has even been in the military.
Click to expand...
Is this 10% or the adult population or does this include children as well?


As for all military personnel being trained to shoot rifles....yes, and no...

There are some great shooters in the military.
There some above average shooters in the military.
And there are some average shooters in the military.
And there are some below average shooters in the military.
And, sadly, there are some folks in the military who can't shoot worth crap.

More than a few military personnel have "qualified" with the help of a 5.56 mm ink pen!


Sometimes the military needs a skilled person, like an excellent surgeon, and they will not kick them out simply because they can't shoot well.
 
The funny thing about the "highly trained" idea is that a majority of service members are not all that highly trained. At least 90% of the military is in a non combat related MOS.

Most cops, their training is pretty lackluster, too.

I shot the M-16 in basic training, limited ammo, no FA.
It wasn't until later when I cross trained to Security Forces that I shot the M9.

It was years after that when I deployed to Iraq in an ILO slot, that I got additional training for the M2, and M249.

Sorry, but an 18 hear old that shoots a few dozen rounds down range each year is not 'highly trained'.

I've had more training in the 4-1/2 years since I got out of the military than I did in the entire time I was on active duty.
 
I went into USAF in 1970, into the Strategic Air Command, we were in a constant state of training and there was no simulation of shooting full-auto. It was all for real. At least twice a week and sometimes more we launched nuke loaded B-52's just to show the enemy satellites that we were serious. I almost feel like laughing when government officials talk about terrorism. For years that was exactly our policy, M.A.D., mutually assured destruction wasn't just an acronym, we were really doing it. And now they act like I shouldn't be allowed to have semi-auto firearms. Way too much hypocrisy going around, if you ask me.
 
When I was in using 3 round burst on the M16A2 was grounds for getting an article 15. ( non judicial punishment). That and we never put more than 20 rds in a 30 rd mag when qualifying which was only once or twice a year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Palladan44
  • Locked
Shooting scenes in films- Good and bad
Replies
7
Views
628
Robert
Robert
M
  • Locked
How to respond to VietNam vet re: full-autos
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Monkeyleg
M
Doug Bowser
  • Locked
M1 shooting in the 60's and the eventual passing of the M1 as a service rifle
Replies
11
Views
1K
lysanderxiii
L
W
  • Locked
Colt's Grip On M4 Rifles Criticized
Replies
9
Views
832
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
S
  • Locked
Wars, Guns, and Money
Replies
1
Views
413
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top