Taken in that context, certainly.
There are, of course, civilian owned M16’s but I get your point ;-)
Civilian arms vs military arms
- Thread starter WestKentucky
- Start date
- Status
There are, of course, civilian owned M16’s but I get your point ;-)
Telekinesis
Member
If we’re talking AR vs M4 or M16, there’s not a lot of difference. In fact, I’d lean towards saying that in some instances civilian weapons might be better than military weapons. And I would definitely take a civilian long range bolt rifle over pretty much anything in the conventional military for that purpose.
That said, there’s a whole lot of other stuff that goes into fighting than who has the better gun. Small unit tactics is about the highest level of warfare that civilians can expect to compete against any sort of real military, be it US or foreign, without external aid (other countries giving us weapons), and even that’s a stretch. We don’t even have the ability to match an infantry company - no anti-armor ability or indirect fire (mortars). And that doesn’t even get into mobility issues like being able to deploy by helicopter.
Looking at just firearms, there is a pretty big gap due to the lack of belt fed machine guns. Four or five guys with ARs can probably have the same effective suppression of an area as one belt fed for a short amount of time, but it’s going to be difficult to keep that up for say, 3-5 minutes while your other team maneuvers on the target.
The largest issue in my opinion is that while lots of us know how to manipulate our firearms, few of us actually know (and practice) how to fight with firearms as individuals, and even fewer actually know how to fight with firearms in groups. For example, when was the last time you and your friends practiced fire and maneuver, bounding overwatch, or setting up an ambush? How many of us can effectively fight at night? Who has night vision and the training to use it?
For an even simpler measure, how many of us can put on a fighting load of armor + mags, rifle, pistol, and then whatever gear you need to live in the woods (hiking gear) and then walk a mile?
Not saying that everybody has to do that (everybody has their own interests) but there is a whole lot to effectively fighting as a group, and knowing how to shoot a gun and hit a target is only a very small part of it.
The weird thing is that if you do buy a tank, you can reactivate the main cannon by just paying $200 and registering it as a destructive device, but the coaxial machine gun has to be transferable (unless you’re a SOT). So your supporting machine gun is effectively more heavily regulated than the main gun.
That said, there’s a whole lot of other stuff that goes into fighting than who has the better gun. Small unit tactics is about the highest level of warfare that civilians can expect to compete against any sort of real military, be it US or foreign, without external aid (other countries giving us weapons), and even that’s a stretch. We don’t even have the ability to match an infantry company - no anti-armor ability or indirect fire (mortars). And that doesn’t even get into mobility issues like being able to deploy by helicopter.
Looking at just firearms, there is a pretty big gap due to the lack of belt fed machine guns. Four or five guys with ARs can probably have the same effective suppression of an area as one belt fed for a short amount of time, but it’s going to be difficult to keep that up for say, 3-5 minutes while your other team maneuvers on the target.
The largest issue in my opinion is that while lots of us know how to manipulate our firearms, few of us actually know (and practice) how to fight with firearms as individuals, and even fewer actually know how to fight with firearms in groups. For example, when was the last time you and your friends practiced fire and maneuver, bounding overwatch, or setting up an ambush? How many of us can effectively fight at night? Who has night vision and the training to use it?
For an even simpler measure, how many of us can put on a fighting load of armor + mags, rifle, pistol, and then whatever gear you need to live in the woods (hiking gear) and then walk a mile?
Not saying that everybody has to do that (everybody has their own interests) but there is a whole lot to effectively fighting as a group, and knowing how to shoot a gun and hit a target is only a very small part of it.
Technically if you can find someone to sell you an Abrams, you can buy it. I don’t think I’ve seen an Abrams for private sale, but there are definitely a lot of older tanks and APCs that are relatively available. If memory serves, you can get a Soviet APC for the price of a new Honda Accord. Though to be fair, it will cost a bit to ship it over here.
The weird thing is that if you do buy a tank, you can reactivate the main cannon by just paying $200 and registering it as a destructive device, but the coaxial machine gun has to be transferable (unless you’re a SOT). So your supporting machine gun is effectively more heavily regulated than the main gun.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
Something i often think about. Is their body armor. I shoot tulla ammo in my Mosin. It's steel core bullets. Would they penetrate the body armor? They do a number on concrete slabs.
bdickens
Member
Soft? Most likely yes. Plates? Depends.
redcon1
member
Wrong. You don't know what I'm talking about.
DustyGmt
Member
I always get angry when I hear idiots talking. 
Can't even count how many times I've heard somebody say in reference to 2A issues that the guys defending their right to own civilian versions of military weapons like the AR15 were stupid because the government has Jets and Nuclear weapons, and then some idiot politicians echoed those same sentiments, including the POTUS (you need jets and nuclear weapons to take us on, c'mon man, seriously).
I find those remarks to be pretty stupid, some have obviously forgotten how formidable the Vietnamese and the ground fighting in the decades since in the middle east..... the entrenched guerilla/insurgent fighter is a potent force and I'm pretty sure we had jets and nukes back then and for all the good they did, just look how we left the middle east......
Can't even count how many times I've heard somebody say in reference to 2A issues that the guys defending their right to own civilian versions of military weapons like the AR15 were stupid because the government has Jets and Nuclear weapons, and then some idiot politicians echoed those same sentiments, including the POTUS (you need jets and nuclear weapons to take us on, c'mon man, seriously).
I find those remarks to be pretty stupid, some have obviously forgotten how formidable the Vietnamese and the ground fighting in the decades since in the middle east..... the entrenched guerilla/insurgent fighter is a potent force and I'm pretty sure we had jets and nukes back then and for all the good they did, just look how we left the middle east......
DustyGmt
Member
You are either just being a tongue in cheek wiseguy or truly don't know what you're talking about. Barely useful??? Maybe in your hands, I know what I can do with my "barely useful" AR....
Seriously, can you quantify that statement in any way, other than to say the military doesn't use a SA only version, which doesn't really mean a tinkers damn btw.....
The Glockodile
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,688
Pew pew pew!
anothernewb
Member
In the category of cartridges themselves -in man carried size calibers - there is little to no difference. This of course breaks down once you go beyond things like .50 cal. You can't exactly buy a vulcan,Bofors, or armored vehicle ammunition as a civilian.
In terms of the weapons themselves- aside from select fire, full auto, or burst capacity, I would say many civilian arms are every bit as durable and in many cases more accurate than the military components. Any fully automatic weapon will have a decided advantage in firearms of a similar design within it's design limits and encounter type.
In terms of the technical gadgetry I would say that scopes, RDS, and holo sights are on par, but night vision and other systems the military has a distinct advantage.
Lastly on the category of explosives - I would say it's on par for IED's if you're skilled. This is less arms - but I am going to list it as a function of capability given access to arms.Diesel fuel, fertilizer, pipe casing and ball bearings is pretty much just as effective as a claymore, the military just comes in a nicer package with a convenient label stating which way to point it.
In terms of the weapons themselves- aside from select fire, full auto, or burst capacity, I would say many civilian arms are every bit as durable and in many cases more accurate than the military components. Any fully automatic weapon will have a decided advantage in firearms of a similar design within it's design limits and encounter type.
In terms of the technical gadgetry I would say that scopes, RDS, and holo sights are on par, but night vision and other systems the military has a distinct advantage.
Lastly on the category of explosives - I would say it's on par for IED's if you're skilled. This is less arms - but I am going to list it as a function of capability given access to arms.Diesel fuel, fertilizer, pipe casing and ball bearings is pretty much just as effective as a claymore, the military just comes in a nicer package with a convenient label stating which way to point it.
Last edited:
My experience is that very few of us know how to fight at all.
anothernewb
Member
This is a little off topic but I here you completely. Very few people really know how to live tough, and what that actually means.
Watched it first hand once. Was some heavy construction crews in the area for a project. The kind of guys that are just big, silent and hard, hard at work and later hard at drinking. 24/7. They came into one of the local bars. The local "toughs" that pretend they run the place started up things with this crew. Long story short. They completely wiped the floor with them and didn't even spill a beer. It was like first graders lined up against an NFL team. The sheriff arrested the locals - mostly to save their lives. and the local cops were in no way tough enough to bring these guys down without actual firepower. The whole place was lucky the group really only wanted to be left alone and have some drinks.
JTHunter
Member
Because of that "limitation" of ammo, it is very likely that those "civilian defenders"would be more deliberate and more precise in their shots and go for the "high value" targets.
CoalCrackerAl
Member
Im in so shape for close contact battle. If it came down to it. I would work in the background as a sniper. If need be. I feel my role would be better served as an armorer.
redcon1
member
OK, "barely useful" was a stretch and perhaps tongue in cheek. Barely useful as a military weapon is more accurate however. But we need to remember what we have learned from our gun control advocate friends-that an AR15 is deadly because of its ability to "spray bullets" at a rapid rate. OK, let's accept that for a moment. if that is the case, then an M16A2 is fully 3X as deadly as any semi-automatic AR15 because it is able to spray bullets at 3x the rate of the AR15 using its 3 round burst feature. This is using their argument, their logic, their definition of "deadly" and their rationale for banning the AR15 and similar semi-automatic firearms. If they argue that the AR15 is more deadly than, for example, a bolt action rifle based on its rate of fire, they have to accept that the M16 is 3X more deadly than the AR15 and that is important because Justice Scalia specifically mentioned the M16 as being a firearm that was within the government's constitutional authority to restrict in the Heller decision. They have latched onto that and argued that the AR15 is the same thing as an M16, a "weapon of war that has no place on our streets". They have argued that an AR15 needs to be banned because it is capable of a higher rate of fire than other types of firearms and that is what makes it a weapon of war and Justice Scalia says it's OK to restrict dangerous and unusual weapons like M16s. By their own petard they are hoisted then. If the AR15 is dangerous because of its rate of fire, the M16 is, at a minimum, three times more dangerous and is, therefore, clearly much different than any semi-automatic rifle. It therefore can not be argued that an AR15 is the same thing as an M16 with regards to Scalia's remarks. That's all I'm trying to say here.
The Glockodile
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,688
I wanna be the tactical drone operator sipping my slurpee.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,508
So you're going to use an anti-2a's argument to validate your claims? People on the anti-2a have ridiculous arguments, many times not founded in logic.
The simple fact of the matter is that an AR15 is for all practical purposes equal to an M16/M4 etc in lethality. With the triggers we have at our disposal in the commercial world one can setup and tune an AR15 to run right there with a full-auto M16/M4. We shouldn't be scared of truth, but stand on it, embrace it and defend it.
I for one am not going to use the anti's fuzzy logic to defend my rights to own by your standards a "lessor" weapon. The citizen militia of this country (every of age person) should be able to own rifles of equal nature to the military the citizen militia funds. Remember it was farmers, blacksmiths, teachers, statesman, students, etc that lead the US war of freedom against the most professional and well funded army of the era. I don't think the frontiersman with their Kentucky rifles felt outgunned when pushing back against the redcoats.
When you are already in a hole bigger than you want, just stop digging.
Last edited:
What was your MOS? Where'd you go to basic?
redcon1
member
No. the M16 is, at a minimum, 3x more deadly than any semi-automatic rifle and clearly NOT the same thing as an AR15.
I'm not in any hole. I'm perfectly happy with my position. I'm not sure why you feel the need to fight here. I don't.
Benning. Figure it out. I have subsequently made my logic clear for those who were failing to grasp my point. The AR15 is entirely different than the M16. It is more deadly. The M16A2 is 3x more deadly. The M16A1 and A4 are ∞more deadly. It's really nothing worth fighting about.
You made the claim of service and then went on to make some rather absurd claims. We have many here who have served, THR will not tolerate keyboard warriors and pretenders. I say again, what was your MOS?
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,508
You keep saying that, but you do realize the BCG has to cycle three times for the tri-burst to function, correct? As that BCG is cycling the shooter can be right back on the trigger with 2 subsequent follow up shots. A civilian with a good grasp on trigger control with a nice single stage trigger can shoot just as fast as a tri-burst. Don't believe me well, just go to some AR timed matches and watch these civilians with their "non-military, lower lethality" rifles that happen to fire the same ammunition the military use work the trigger and targets.
Not to mention with binary triggers and a tuned AR15 one can shoot faster than a full auto M4 I've been told. I cannot verify this myself, but have no reason to doubt it based on what I've seen.
Last edited:
Nasty Canasta
Member
It’s been proven more than once that a superior armed government force can be defeated over time by a resolute resistance.
WOLVERINES!
WOLVERINES!
OP
OP
WestKentucky
Member
It’s been a really busy couple days and you all did not disappoint with the responses thus far.
I especially like the comments on the use of IED devices since civilian manufacture and possession of DD type items keeps the general populace from having such items laying about. I know if I could legally have a grenade I would, but I know me and I would only have it for a few minutes before I needed to replace it. Some poor beaver would have to rebuild his dam. The fact of the matter (I didn’t serve but know plenty guys who have) is that IEDs were among the biggest threats faced in Afghanistan and materials to make such items are probably only slightly less available here. I say that because we generally don’t have surplus artillery rounds in abundance like some war torn countries have had in recent history. The ability to make closes many many gaps there, but explosives is about the only gap closed. Nobody is turning a crop duster into an a10 and any crop duster used for any purpose at all is defenseless to fighters.
I especially like the comments on the use of IED devices since civilian manufacture and possession of DD type items keeps the general populace from having such items laying about. I know if I could legally have a grenade I would, but I know me and I would only have it for a few minutes before I needed to replace it. Some poor beaver would have to rebuild his dam. The fact of the matter (I didn’t serve but know plenty guys who have) is that IEDs were among the biggest threats faced in Afghanistan and materials to make such items are probably only slightly less available here. I say that because we generally don’t have surplus artillery rounds in abundance like some war torn countries have had in recent history. The ability to make closes many many gaps there, but explosives is about the only gap closed. Nobody is turning a crop duster into an a10 and any crop duster used for any purpose at all is defenseless to fighters.
Commercial drones are being used now in warfare, the new 'air support'?
Anyway Patton thought a semiauto 8 shot gun was a fine battle implement. There is something of a disconnect in this discussion as the gun world has tried to defend the ownership of AR's as not being military guns but Modern Sporting Rifles and thus some kind of recreational toy. I've railed against this usage. Remember if someone called an AR, an assault rifle - folks would have seizures as assault rifles are fully auto by definition and thus the AR is a nice gun. If a gun control person said assault rifle, folks would denounce the usage and think that would convince folks not to ban them. Note that that media sometimes calls them military style semiautomatic rifles.
As far as lethal utility, that discussion was ridiculous and thanks for the folks who corrected that. The lethality of guns to contact rampages, sometimes in short times, negates the idea that they are not so dangerous. ARs, AKs, Mini-14s have killed 10s of folks quickly. They have taken down police officers.
This makes folks want to ban them. However, their constitutional protection is because of their lethal purpose - not being a neutral tool or sporting toy. If they had no potential for that usage to defend oneself and against tyranny, they not have been so protected by the 2nd Amendment.
You can't fight B-2s. Well, there are only 21 of them. There are 50 states.
Anyway Patton thought a semiauto 8 shot gun was a fine battle implement. There is something of a disconnect in this discussion as the gun world has tried to defend the ownership of AR's as not being military guns but Modern Sporting Rifles and thus some kind of recreational toy. I've railed against this usage. Remember if someone called an AR, an assault rifle - folks would have seizures as assault rifles are fully auto by definition and thus the AR is a nice gun. If a gun control person said assault rifle, folks would denounce the usage and think that would convince folks not to ban them. Note that that media sometimes calls them military style semiautomatic rifles.
As far as lethal utility, that discussion was ridiculous and thanks for the folks who corrected that. The lethality of guns to contact rampages, sometimes in short times, negates the idea that they are not so dangerous. ARs, AKs, Mini-14s have killed 10s of folks quickly. They have taken down police officers.
This makes folks want to ban them. However, their constitutional protection is because of their lethal purpose - not being a neutral tool or sporting toy. If they had no potential for that usage to defend oneself and against tyranny, they not have been so protected by the 2nd Amendment.
You can't fight B-2s. Well, there are only 21 of them. There are 50 states.
Last edited:
illinoisburt
Member
Wow. Lots of non-THR attitudes. Let's just suffice to say if there was an actual situation which required people to act in defense of country the existing rules controlling what people owned would be abandoned quickly with people making all kinds of machine guns, suppressors, and explosives in short order. Existing materials and knowledge is all over the country. No one is going to be filling out forms and waiting on stamps to make stuff to bring to the field.
Getting back to the original question, the major leaps in small arms tech in recent years have a lot more to do with sighting systems than their basic function. Night vision, thermal, drones, and communications are definitely behind 1st world militaries though what is readily available at fairly low cost now is only maybe a generation behind. Necessity being the mother of invention I'm sure people would find ways to make due. If anything given the huge geography of the country it would not take long to have underground support and supply chains develop.
Getting back to the original question, the major leaps in small arms tech in recent years have a lot more to do with sighting systems than their basic function. Night vision, thermal, drones, and communications are definitely behind 1st world militaries though what is readily available at fairly low cost now is only maybe a generation behind. Necessity being the mother of invention I'm sure people would find ways to make due. If anything given the huge geography of the country it would not take long to have underground support and supply chains develop.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
