Civilian arms vs military arms

[WestKentucky]

Today I was asked if I was worried about “Ol Pooty Poo” starting WW3 and the conversation quickly led to the other guy stating that nothing we do matters anyways because “them military guns is something else, our guns are nothing in comparison”.

So, really how far behind are we? NFA slows us down and stops a bunch of people from getting large, full auto, or other high end gear but so does cost and availability. What military weaponry is in use and what is the closest civilian arms? My theory is that in small arms the difference is minuscule but in heavy ordnance and guided systems that cost is truthfully a bigger factor than any arbitrary rules or regulations. Point being that even if I had desire for something akin to an abrams tank, the cost to buy it, drive it, and shoot it is as much or bigger issue than the legal hurdles that might be in place.

And let’s branch out some. Other countries have military gear too.

 

[gobsauce]

Having done some government research, and worked with engineers from massive projects, I have a general rule if thumb when it comes to military vs. civilian tech:

The military tech is ten years ahead of civilian tech.

Not exact, but a general idea.

A great example is night vision. Recently, there's been civilian development in Multi Color Night Vision. My cousin, an awarded Army vet, used it in his deployment in Afghanistan.

 

[jmr40]

Small arms vs small arms there isn't much difference. Even the military rarely uses full auto. The difference is with the technology of using armed drones with night and infrared. The use of armor, artillery, air power etc. The best that a civilian group can do it harass and provide intel. Much like the French resistance during WW-2

 

[herrwalther]

When it comes to small arms, the gap between mil and civ weapons isn't very prominent.

 

[Insignificant bill]

If our Military actually turned on us we would have to use guerilla tactics. They can be very effective as history has proven

 

[JCooperfan1911]

Airpower alone would anhilate a lot of people.

But recent history has shown us, multiple times now over many decades, that asymmetrical warfare is tremendously effective.

 

[Robert]

Folks, we are not going to talk politics or insurrection. We can discuss small arms all day long, but most of the other stuff is off Topic for THR. I already deleted one blatantly political post, let's try to keep this one out of the ditch.

 

[Mosin77]

You can buy some pretty sophisticated small arms in semi-auto form that would probably meet or exceed the government issue items. There’s nothing inherently superior in an M4 compared to the dozens of civilian variants of the same gun. Sig and FN are happy to sell MCXs, SCARs, etc.

But the other stuff, beyond small arms, is generally unavailable, due to cost and lack of demand. Even if I had Jeff Bezos-level money and wanted to outfit my own personal warship for privateering, I doubt I’d be able to gain access to the guided munitions, stealth technologies, and other technological wizardry that makes a modern warship able to hold its own today. Since virtually all of that is sold to the military, I doubt the companies supplying it would want to jeopardize their lucrative contracts by selling top of the line technology to a civilian unless it became obvious that civilian demand was very high.

 

[1942bull]

The guns are just a piece of the equation. No one’s r0 caliber rifle is going to stop a Bradley Fighting vehicle with its w0mmm cannon from advancing on you. When three squads assault under the cover of theee squad automatic weapons. No one is going to get their head up long enough to to fire a shot. Then there is that matter of close quarters combat tactics. Civilians have no counter to that. 97% off civilians have never been in the military let alone the infantry. Civilian guns are just one small part of the equation.

 

[Rule3]

Lots of folks have Dillon reloading presses, buy how many have one of these??

 

[General Geoff]

Small arms are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to military hardware.

 

[redcon1]

The M16A2 with its 3 round burst capability is much much more deadly than the weak and barely useful semi-automatic AR15. The difference between these two weapons is massive. The AR15 is perfectly acceptable for hunting small game and target practice but it just doesn't compare to the M16 when it comes to military use which is why no military uses the AR15. they understand the importance of the three round burst feature.

 

[General Geoff]

The M16A2 with its 3 round burst capability is much much more deadly than the weak and barely useful semi-automatic AR15.

Weak and barely useful, huh. No wonder it's the most popular rifle platform in North America.

Nearly all military-adopted AR-15 (5.56/.223) platform rifles have full auto and/or burst settings not because it's an absolute necessity but because it's a useful feature that can be added to the rifle with no penalties (aside from prodigious ammunition consumption).

 

[BreechFace]

The M16A2 with its 3 round burst capability is much much more deadly than the weak and barely useful semi-automatic AR15. The difference between these two weapons is massive. The AR15 is perfectly acceptable for hunting small game and target practice but it just doesn't compare to the M16 when it comes to military use which is why no military uses the AR15. they understand the importance of the three round burst feature.

Disagree, both 3 round burst and full-auto are not game changers in an insurgency situation. Discuss how often either 3-round burst or full auto is used in modern warfare by soldiers, aimed fire in a semi-auto fashion is much more effective.

Now you want to talk about a game changer it would be one side having M249 Bravo's and belt fed 50bmg's.

A war of insurgency in the USA would be a VERY long and drawn out battle of attrition.

 

[brmiller]

I have no use for a 22, other than as a practice tool. I'll keep my AR10 (civilian version) though.

 

[redcon1]

Weak and barely useful, huh. No wonder it's the most popular rifle platform in North America.

Nearly all military-adopted AR-15 (5.56/.223) platform rifles have full auto and/or burst settings not because it's an absolute necessity but because it's a useful feature that can be added to the rifle with no penalties (aside from prodigious ammunition consumption).

No. The 3 round burst and the full auto feature makes the M16 a totally different animal. The semi auto civilian version, like I said, is great for hunting small game and target shooting and even self defense, and that's why it has been the most popular rifle in America for many years but it's just not the weapon of war that the M16 is, not by a long shot. Three round burst = machine gun. You can empty that mag in about 1 second on burst. If you have a 100 round drum magazine, your 3 round burst M16 is basically a general purpose machine gun like an M249 or or M240. The AR15 is completely outmatched by something like that and is just not useful as a weapon of war, especially not when opposing soldiers have the full auto feature.

 

[General Geoff]

I have no use for a 22, other than as a practice tool. I'll keep my AR10 (civilian version) though.

And military-adopted AR-10 platform rifles (like the KAC SR-25) are generally semiautomatic-only. The world's militaries learned that lesson ~60 years ago. Full power rifle calibers are utterly uncontrollable in full auto when used in a sub-12 lb service rifle.

 

[redcon1]

And military-adopted AR-10 platform rifles (like the KAC SR-25) are generally semiautomatic-only. The world's militaries learned that lesson ~60 years ago. Full power rifle calibers are utterly uncontrollable in full auto when used in a sub-12 lb service rifle.

The .280 British would have made battle rifles more controllable on full auto but the US wanted full power 30/06 effectiveness so we got 7.62x51mm instead which I do like a lot but, at the same time, I really wish that cartridge would have been given a chance as it could have been really useful.

 

[General Geoff]

No. The 3 round burst and the full auto feature makes the M16 a totally different animal. The semi auto civilian version, like I said, is great for hunting small game and target shooting and even self defense, and that's why it has been the most popular rifle in America for many years but it's just not the weapon of war that the M16 is, not by a long shot. Three round burst = machine gun. You can empty that mag in about 1 second on burst. If you have a 100 round drum magazine, your 3 round burst M16 is basically a general purpose machine gun like an M249 or or M240. The AR15 is completely outmatched by something like that and is just not useful as a weapon of war, especially not when opposing soldiers have the full auto feature.

I'm no soldier nor have I ever been one, but I have fired my share of (legal) full auto AR-15s and their volume of fire is impressive but not as absolutely essential to their military usefulness as you make it out to be.

I'm not saying full auto is not essential at all for military applications. That's what LMGs are for. THOSE are nearly useless as a semi auto only platform. Like the FN M249S:



A very cool piece of kit but garbage as a tool of war without the automatic fire.


But for a lightweight carbine, full auto is less important to its overall purpose.

 

[redcon1]

A very cool piece of kit but garbage as a tool of war without the automatic fire.

I carried the full auto version of that in the Army. It was awesome. The name "SAW" is apt. A burst fire M16 isn't too much different, especially when you have a squad of soldiers all laying down fire in burst mode. It's an intense amount of lead and red phosphorous being directed downrange. Add a SAW to that mix and an AR15 is just woefully inadequate. If you're downrange of all that fire, you aren't going to poke your head up to fire your flintlock like semi-automatic rifle. You're probably just gonna cry and die.

 

[General Geoff]

I carried the full auto version of that in the Army. It was awesome. The name "SAW" is apt. A burst fire M16 isn't too much different, especially when you have a squad of soldiers all laying down fire in burst mode. It's an intense amount of lead and red phosphorous being directed downrange. Add a SAW to that mix and an AR15 is just woefully inadequate. If you're downrange of all that fire, you aren't going to poke your head up to fire your flintlock like semi-automatic rifle. You're probably just gonna cry and die.

Suppressive fire doesn't win wars on its own. It's just one common tactic out of many in modern warfare.

In an asymmetric warfare scenario where a civilian population like ours has to defend against a well-equipped organized military, the lack of automatic fire on the civilian side would be an advantage to them because it would conserve ammunition. The civilian side would not have the luxury of a juggernaut supply chain delivering pallets of ammo every few days like the military side would.

 

[Mk-211]

Asymmetrical warfare is how civilian militias have gained better weapons in the past.

Just because a military comes to town doesn't mean squat. A well trained group can over power smaller groups and gain better weapons.

One great example is the Mujahideen against the Russian military.

Never underestimate the will power of a motivated group to overcome lopsided odds and beat a better opponent!

 

[kwguy]

Lots of people have been killed in combat by semi auto rifle fire.

 

[redcon1]

Suppressive fire doesn't win wars on its own. It's just one common tactic out of many in modern warfare.

In an asymmetric warfare scenario where a civilian population like ours has to defend against a well-equipped organized military, the lack of automatic fire on the civilian side would be an advantage to them because it would conserve ammunition. The civilian side would not have the luxury of a juggernaut supply chain delivering pallets of ammo every few days like the military side would.

What are we talking about here? I'm talking about comparing an M16A2 to an AR15 with respect to its effectiveness as a weapon of war. I'm not talking about a civilian population like ours "defending" itself against a well equipped organized military like..the PLA or whatever. That's a whole 'nuther topic and not one that I really want to get into.

Let's refocus then. I'm just saying that from the perspective of the weapons themselves, they're totally different animals and the one with the 3 round burst mode is 3x more deadly than the other one because it can literally spray bullets 3x as fast. I don't think there's any arguing about that.

 

[Slamfire]

One great example is the Mujahideen against the Russian military.

Never underestimate the will power of a motivated group to overcome lopsided odds and beat a better opponent!

Another great example is the Mujaheddin against the Unites States Coalition!

Look, the feminist's were messing with the Taliban back before the Clinton Administration. Their agenda is to destroy the Afghan culture, destroy the Afghan religion, and turn the country into feminist matriarchy. And the brave boys over there pushed back, and won. However it cost close to 200,000 Afghans to gain their independence, gain their self determination, and push out the foreign feminist coalition forces. It took them 20 years.

However, the supply chain was a killer for the US forces, and the fact the US had to pay trillions to corrupt Pakistan Government Officials to transport supplies through Pakistan. And, the Pakistan provided safe havens for Taliban forces, which has always been a huge factor in every guerilla war. Guerillas need a safe base to retire to when things get too hot.

A recent example of the people pushing back against a tyrannical Government is the Myanmar Civil War which is ongoing at this moment. A military Government take over and the populace has figured out ways to push back.