@@jeddvillaspin3379 At the battle of Gettysburg, no one in John Buford's cavalry unit was upset because they didn't have cap and ball. Everyone in the unit had a repeater. They held up a better part of a corp for hours because of rate of fire which allowed the Union to keep the high ground which ultimately won the battle.
“You don’t need a gun, that’s what police are for!” That’s like saying “You don’t need a fire extinguisher, that’s what the fire department is for!” Dumb [nanny] statists.
@@princessmarlena1359you don't need a stove that's what chefs are for also falls into this category that my .357 wielding grandmother says to everyone who asks why she needs the revolver
reminds me of hearing about pirates privately buying flintlock muskets to use in their raids while most european militaries were still using the older matchlock arquebuses
Yes. An amazing example is buccaneers. They privately equipped themselves and sacked entire cities. They often proved to have far greater prowess than many Spanish armies and militias.
You missed a pretty critical factor: Other priorities. Older guns are often considered good enough and the option isn't to get a new rifle with new optics but either a new gun or new optics and later on either a new gun or say nightvision or better ballistic protection. Usually a major gun swap in a military happens only after the planned lifespan of the older model makes it a necessity.
There's also testing done, logistics, environment and such. You can't just drop everything for the newest shiny in the market and a lot of weapons ideas/upgrades tend come from issues or needs troops have in the field and improving, that's why while unfortunate a lot of things come months after a military situation and another few months of testing
@@j.pershing2197 A generals main job is thinking about what we are going to do tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and in the next war. So yes a general should be sitting at a table drinking coffee more often than not.
there is also the factor that as far as inflicting battlefield casualties, infantry rifles are only a small minority in that. By far the most casualty producing weapons of war are artillery, aircraft, and armored vehicles. And even on the squad level the most casualty producing weapons aren't the M4's, its the Grenade launchers and machine guns, weapons not available to civilians.
It's excellent to just good enough and everything in between. I've had a few m-16s issued to me, and I've qualified with them many times. The overall accuracy was shockingly different with the same shooter and conditions. Some I'd always group fantastically and reliably, some barely would.
Its different with weapons. Military weapons and their parts have to be manufactured to very strict specifications. There is a lot of government oversight built into a contract for a civilian company to manufacture government weapons. Colt had some of the best Quality Control in the business when they had the contract for the M4.
Ease of mass production, cost per unit, ammo type restrictions, ammo carrying capacity etc... My No1 favorite rifle I own though is a old military rifle. A 1919 British 303, its action is butter smooth , shoots true and can hold 10 rounds in its magazine. I have had it for over 30 years and never plan to sale it. With the right hunting ammo it packs a mean punch.
You've had it for 30 yrs ,so you must've fired cordite rounds at some point? If you have would you say that cordite has such a distinct smell ,that nothing else smells like it ? I had a Enfield jungle carbine .
@@j.robertsergertson4513 I shot some military ammo in it many years ago when my late uncle left it to me before his passing. Yeah i remember it had a distinct smell but i switched to hunting rounds right afterwards. I Been using Hornady 164 GR, for years. They aint cheap but they are very good rounds. I have a brother that reloads me some for target practice. Mine has a custom wood stock ( not full length stock like military) that my uncle had put on it when he traded for it with some Japanese stuff he bought back from WW2. He gave me a Nambu that he had kept . Its been put away for years and never fired in my lifetime and i do not think my uncle ever fired it.
This video is for countries like the USA where gun laws are quite relaxed. India for example restricts civilians from getting any calibre or weapon that's in use by the military.
I'm friends with a couple of retired vets. One jumped out of planes for the Marines and the other jumped out of planes for the Army. I'm just a poor old retired Navy guy who's pushed more pens than bullets. But when my buddies wanted to get into civilian firearm ownership, I had to school them like they were almost brand new to guns. These were people who shot iron sights their entire careers, and I blew their minds when I introduced them to the... red dot! To civilians, guns and ammo come in a lot of different flavors with a ton of science behind it all. A soldier, for the most part, is just trained to be proficient in the weapon system they are handed or expected to encounter. Despite that, though, they are very capable war fighters. I mean that's their whole mission in life! Much more capable than most civilians because of their training. It's not the gun that's deadly. It's the man behind the gun that's deadly.
I'm a US Navy Operations Specialist and MP veteran . I've set up a reloading bench and taught some friends to reload ammo. I've taught them how to peer through a rifle scope like it's a radar screen , judge ranges , and calculate ballistics . My favorite rifle cartridge is 7mm Remington Magnum .
@@casketman14 yes but if you were to combined both the military and the civilians together with each other weapons be working together would be a very terrifying force to mess with.
Militaries chase Jack of all trades, while civilians can min/max and get extremely OP builds that excels at one task. Special forces get really cool toys compared to the average infantry though.
millitary the weapon and specs get chosen for you but as a civilian like you said can go either waaaay above or below average it depends on your budget
Military weapons need to be effective enough to do the job, cheap enough to obtain in the necessary quantity, and simple enough for anyone to maintain. Civilian weapons have less of a price limit, given the reduced quantity, and the complexity can be as great as the intelligence of the buyer rather than needing to match the lowest common denominator.
From expensive to cheap and low and high quality for the weaponry, equipment and technology to make them very useful and effective is well as reliable and in all forms of production.
Civilian arms have "reduced quantity"? Idunno about where you are, but last time I looked, the "population" of firearms (that are known about... this doesn't count the kazillion-or-so weapons that never had a serial number, and thus we have only a semi-educated guess at how many there actually are) in the hands of American civilians *RIGHT THIS INSTANT* is higher than the "population" of firearms held by *EVERY MILITARY ON THE PLANET COMBINED*. I'm thinking "reduced quantity" doesn't apply very well to civilian weaponry... Unless you're trying to say that civilian weapons are exchanged in "reduced quantities" - As in, one civilian says "I bought one gun yesterday/last week/last month" while the military says "We bought 10,000 guns yesterday/last week/last month". But even then it doesn't work so well - 'cause the more likely scenario is 20 or 30 thousand civilians saying "I bought one gun yesterday/last week/last month" for every time the military says "we bought 10,000".
@@Ferd414 Civilian market guns are sold in low volumes, compared to military guns. It took many years to to the population of civilian-owned AR to outpace the military AR- s. Clicaln owned AR-s which are good the milspec Colt-s ar not nearly that numerous.
@@tyaty What's the higher volume? The 10, 20, even 30 thousand (and those are considered to be *VERY* conservative estimates) civilians who each buy *ONE GUN* today, which happens pretty much every day of the week, or the military who, every few - let's say 5, even though we know for certain it's less frequent than that - years, swings in and buys a batch of - oh, let's say 150 thousand as someplace to stand - every 5 years? Hint: Even at "only" 10 thousand per day, in less than a month (closer to 2 weeks) civilians buy more guns than the military buys in 5 years. And they don't STOP buying them after 5 days - They've still got 365 times 5 is - nah, not gonna bother to do the arithmetic, just gonna round it down to 1500 for easier math - days of buying to do, at 10 thousand guns per day. So after that 5 years/1500 days has passed, that'd be what? Somewhere north of FIFTEEN MILLION civilian purchases versus 150 thousand military purchases? Still wanna try to tell me that civilian sales are "low volume"?
It could never be comprehensive. Quick way if you're really interested look up the tactics of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war. I say it can never be fully covered in a video because guerilla tactics constantly evolve. The Americans used guerilla tactics against the British by fighting like the American Indians, and the British were just pissed that the rebels didn't line up facing them in the early part of the war. The VC though made it an artform. Sorry it's long, history nerd.
You can find other channels covering this topic already. But in short when the American settlers first came to the US and conflicts and wars broke out with the native Americans, they were stunned by their hit and run tactics, while the whites were used to open line formation warfare. So they learn to adopt them, they used it well in the south during the revolutionary war
Like the saying goes: "logistics logistics logistics." If you can't supply a sufficient amount of the equipment, the parts and tools needs for maintenance, as well as ammunition, you might as well not have that weapon at all. Civilians don't care that much if the weapon needs to be rezeroed every hundred shots or the stock replaced every time you bash it and that part takes a month to arrive. For a soldier, that might as well be the same difference between being fully equipped and half your squad sitting out of a firefight or fighting off enemies with stones. Not to mention if the cost of a gun can becomes the difference between every squad having one LMG vs two plus a LAW.
Civilians don’t care because if put under strenuous situations, they’ll still come up on top due to other variables an attacking military can’t control.
Is it that much different beyond having different recoil systems? Feel like the 416 was really cool for its time but less necessary now because the M4 has improved.
@OperatorJackYT if i was able to join while in HS, i wouldve but Army was the only branch that has that option. But its 2 years too late for that haha, signed a long time ago
Actually, civilians ARE allowed to own military grade fully automatic firearms that are made after 1986. They have to get an SOT license, or a federal firearms dealer license that allows them to purchase and own these firearms as long as they keep it updated, keep their record clean and pay the fees.
That supersedes the definition of civilian though. As soon as your company (important word) files for a FFL 07/SOT, you (or rather your company/business) becomes a a *defense contractor* in the strictest sense of the word. The ATF is not fulfilling FFL 07/SOT's for private civilians. As in, never. You must show at the very least, an intent to profit under your FFL 07. Civilians can technically own full auto firearms in the US, but *only* pre-1986 registered (with price tags in the tens of, to hundreds of thousands of $).
Your basically right on the money however having an FFL07 SOT means you have to be in the business for profit, you can't just get an SOT because you want mgs, unfortunately
Because the military and government serve the people, they dont rule above them. Also standardization is important to make logistics easier to maintain on scale.
They only serve as long a they are kept in check, and the people pay attention. Problem is, power shows true self (not power corrupts), and those with ruling intentions tend to get in power sneakily, and morph the laws to fit their agenda, which subsequently limits/removes the peoples power.
Mass production of small arms gets costly when you need to appropriately outfit potentially millions of infantry, and in reality they aren't even the deciding factors of modern conflicts. So they get mass produced to be "functional enough" at the lowest cost. Even then reports are that "military" grade guns still function just fine. The issue is that weapons stay in service for incredibly long periods of time, getting recycled through countless infantrymen who they get assigned to only to get beatup and accumulate more and more wear and tear through the years.
Like when they sent vietnam, .308 ammo for .556 rifles, and Americans had. NO ammo for two weeks . Good thing the enemy didn't know that at the time. That happened to some of my dad's friends. Over there. He witnessed it first hand. He'd buy his own gear. The gear that mattered anyway. Its crazy. All the stories out there.
Sounds like another case of army ordinance core corruption. There was all sorts of intentional mismanagement just because it was in someone's interest to make sure springfield kept the contract to produce the M14 rather than being dethroned by the M16 being produced outside of the military circles. The number of lives that cost, there are alot of people who should have been put in jail for that.
This is also happening to the Russian army in Ukraine right now to a much more absurd degree, new soldiers are sometimes even told to buy their own body armour
The military uses the metric system for most ammunition. A .556 round would be 55.6 caliber, the M-16 is a 5.56mm. I bet you’ve never been in the military, that 2 weeks without ammunition is a pinko lie.
I’m just a retired Army Infantryman and most former Grunts I know maintain their own field gear and weapons, I guess we’re in the prepper category. And most civilians don’t know that we rarely use full auto or 3 round burst fire as we conduct missions, we train to use two well aim shots fired in rapid succession. And I also own a civilian version of the M-21 rifle because I was trained on that and graduated from the school to use it. Finding modern body armor, helmets, pro masks, field gear and everything else a grunt would need to conduct extended operations.
Full auto is just a waste of ammo, a single shot group compared to a full auto group on paper will tell you that it's in fact pointless to even have that fucntion.
@shanerorko8076 automatic fire isn't pointless, but it has a niche function. It's used in situations where a high volume of rapid fire is needed to quickly suppress an enemy, such as breaking through ambushes, close quarters engagements, and establishing fire superiority.
So, the US military had the opportunity to adopt the Henry and Winchester lever action rifles, but decided against the design because the lever would get in the way of prone shooting, and the design was weaker in melee (as if the 15 round magazine advantage didn't offset that).
The 15rds are only on pistol caliber rifles. The Lever Action Rifles in actual rifle calibers hold the same as bolt action rifles. Let's not forget how Lever Actions are way more complicated, weaker and less reliable than bolt Actions. Trenches are a thing too Shooting in one it's like shooting prone.
You are correct about that, GDP and Budget on arms sales and arm industry is how much money you put into with the resources needed to build, repair, replace and maintain your military a well armed arsenal and state of the art technologies for them to win wars is the cost of everything else that is made is very pricely and cheaper as long as you can keep the whole logistics and maintenance going.
Why's the budget even matter seems there's no budget placed on the munitions we give to ukr and the Self proclaimed chosen ones in that sandy hellhole.
1:10 The AR-15 was a fully automatic rifle which the m16 and m4 were based off of. The original m16 was the exact same gun as the AR-15, however AR-15 was Armalite’s name for it, and M16 was the military’s designation for it. Civilian semiautomatic versions were made after the m16 was adopted by the military. Also the AR-15 shown here appears to actually by an AR-10, which is basically an older version of the AR-15. An easy way to tell that it’s an AR-10 is the location of the charging handle below the sight/carry handle, similar to where it is on a Famas.
I think it’s fair to note that the both the select fire and semiauto versions of the AR15/10 were both technically “civilian” guns originally as back then (before 1986) civilians could buy new automatic weapons.
Chamber pressure. Did you know in Afghanistan, insurgents would take pop shots from different mountain tops and yelling insults in broken English because 762 was more effective than 556 at range & we couldn't do anything. Anyone who thinks semi auto 556 is worth betting yourself on doesn't understand it was meant for full auto to be effective in modern combat. So many other military & civilian cartridges that wipe the floor with it if all you got is that super dangerous full semi auto lol@@rramos117
Civilians also have more options in regards to the chambering of their firearms. An AR-15 built for hubting in the mountains has far more range than the 5.56 rounds the military uses. A civilian can alternatively use an AR-15 with larger slower rounds for use in dense forests to keep scrub brush from throwing off their shot. Or a round like the 6.8 spc which is more focused on urban self-defense.
Another thing to consider is that militaries have a tendency to be financially neglected, especially in peacetime. I was in the Canadian Army during the Cold War, inter-war period and the post 911 world. In that time, our issued sidearm was the WW2 vintage, Inglis manufactured Browning Hi Power. A potent firearm in it’s day, but a little long in the tooth by the time we had them. The Reserve unit I was in post-911 allowed Officers to purchase and carry our own personal sidearm, provided we purchased them legally (we require firearm licenses in Canada), we supplied our own magazines and if the caliber was not the standard issue 9mm, the acquisition of ammo was on the Officer and not the Crown. I chose a first generation Smith & Wesson M&P 9 for that purpose. Being a polymer frame, it was much lighter than the Hi Power. I liked the fact that it was a striker fire, so no external hammer and my model had no external safety but rather utilized the segmented trigger. Right out of the box, I was very impressed with the significantly tighter groupings I was getting, and the sights did not have to be adjusted one bit. Annual range qualifications were a piece of cake, because the standards were based on the clapped out old Hi Powers that had tens of thousands of rounds downrange before we touched them. Although I was never required to go into combat with my civilian purchased firearm, I would have done so if asked. I left the Canadian Army in 2012, but I retained my personal sidearm to this day which is now a much enjoyed range toy. Our current Government in Canada has made civilian ownership of certain firearms rather onerous, with the purchase, selling and transfer of handguns being “frozen” (aka illegal) so my sidearm I used in the defence of this country will unfortunately die with me unless things change. I understand that the Inglis Hi Powers are being retired after having served since the 1940s, replaced by Sig Sauer P225, 226 and 320s which are all good firearms, but purchased a few decades too late.
"Another thing to consider is that militaries have a tendency to be financially neglected, especially in peacetime." And that's the way it should be. In fact, the very idea of a permanent standing military is a fairly recent one in the grand scheme of human history. For much of our history, only an extremely small force of professional soldiers would be maintained during peacetime as the personal household guard for local nobles or the monarch. Each noble would only have maybe a few dozen household guard at any given time, with particularly wealthy or powerful ones being able to field a force of a few hundred. When war broke out and larger armies were needed, the local peasantry would then be pressed into service with first a call for volunteers and then conscription if the required number of troops hadn't been met with enough volunteers. Personally, I think the world would be a much more peaceful place if every nation de-industrialized their military and went back to that old way of doing things.
As another fun fact, Custer was given some Gatling Guns for his ill-fated expedition, but he declined to use them. Why? Because, in his own words, they would "slow his march." While it's debatable whether it would've _actually_ slowed down Custer's troops, had he brought them along, the Battle of Little Bighorn could have turned out _quite_ differently.
Frankenrifles made from 3 wore out junk rifles to make a " new" one for service is another reason civilian rifles tend to be better quality plus you can really tweak your own with custom trigger groups, tougher bolt carriers , better optics, etc
This breakdown regarding the advantages of civilian firearms was very interesting, well done. Even though the line between military and civilian guns is blurred(full-auto capability aside) the reason for why they're considered better is also because of cost and logistics as well as many other factors. Btw your thumbnails are getting more and more creative👍👍.
When I was in the military I used the M-4, M-14, M-21, 870 Pump shotgun, and M-9 PISTOL. Overall I would say my weapons performed excellent and to peak combat effectiveness. My armor was a sharp dude who was OCD about his weapons he issued out. I felt capable and on point when I knew he gave the weapon the OKAY
I spent 6years as a supply clerk for the army reserves, our military chooses the cheapest bidder on most mass produced military products. Most of the equipment in circulation is old and outdated and they have no plans to retire and replace most of it. The stuff that they buy quality, isn't used often enough to justify having. My unit was strictly admin, no combat roles at all, and we had enough $5000 thermal scopes for 30sum troops, not one of us was qualified to use them, not a single one. We had an equal number of acogs, only three were certified to use, out of the 30sum we kept.... We had vehicles that we had no use for and nobody certified to do repairs. Meanwhile, we had privates sharing motel rooms with officers during drill because our unit couldn't afford better accommodations during training periods.
Yes! The military needs to buy more of the civilian weaponry and equipment we have. Logistics, maintenance, and training are very much important in case if they were to fight against any enemy.
Military grade. It's a catchy phrase that gets thrown around to evoke feelings such as quality and ruggedness. In reality, military grade means "whatever's the cheapest option that gets the job done in a more or less reasonable time". A lesson to remember on the field, soldiers: your equipment was manufactured by the cheapest bidder.
at a buffet, i personally sneak corndogs into the buffet so others can enjoy them. I hide 6 corndogs in my jacket pockets. it then, is a joy for me to see other patrons of the establishment eat my corndogs thinking they were part of the buffet.
The AR15 started as the AR10 battle rifle, essentially the same but chambered in the larger 7.62 NATO. It was not purchased or adopted by anyone. But a few years later the USAF wanted to replace the M1 carbines they were mostly using with a new rifle. The AR15 specs are based on what the USAF wanted and was released as a civilian weapon afterwards. That being said, no good reason you should not be able to buy one if you want one. Also, mil spec is a minimum standard but it is not automatically trash. They are often test fired and such while being designed to handle a service life of at least X rounds (this will vary) usually 7500 or more. this includes being able to handle x amount of dirt, weather, etc. The current M4 will cost from 6-700 dollars depending on lot size, procurement times, etc. The lot size is the biggest factor, most civilians aren't going to buy 50,000 at once for the volume discount. If you are paying less than twice the per unit cost, then you might not (Brands will differ) have a rifle that meets mil spec standards. And don't forget the one weapon a soldier will have access to that a civilian will not. A radio that can call in support. Air, Artillery, even Naval if it's in range. Look at about the 47 minute mark of 'Tomorrow, When The War Began'. The one boy actually had a captured mil spec rifle but it proved useless against the missiles fired by the jet fighter.
The simple reason is that the military has to budget for what is good enough at an economy of scale. The individual civilian can justify spending more on himself than Uncle Sam can justify spending on the individual soldier when he has to arm hundreds of thousands of them.
Small correction, the M-16 isn't a full auto version of the colt 601/AR-15. It's just a pre 1986 601/AR-15. Pre 1986 you could get full auto 601s from colt, though rare, they were full auto from the factory and sold to civilians. The M-16 is merely a civilian rifle of the time with a different stamp on the side
While Carlos Hathcock was truly a great USMC sniper. The top USMC sniper in the war in Vietnam was Chuck Mawhinney. Hathcock had 93 Kia while Mawhinney had 103.
The M24 used by the US Army is also based on the Remmington 700. The difference between it and the Marine Corp M40 is that the army version is based on the Remmington 700 long action, and the marine version is the short action. The long action is absolutely the superior weapon.
The .45-70 ammo was copper cased not copper jacketed, it was just a cast lead bullet with no jacket. They actually fixed the failure to extract issue by switching to brass cases.
A Quick Reminder that During the Classical Age, the Roman Legionaries are not as well equipped as a Celtic/Gallic Ambacti. Basically while Roman Legionaries are Professional Soldiers who get their equipment from the States, the Celtic/Gallic Ambacti(Retinue Warriors) are Warriors chosen by Chiefs who would get the best arms, armor and Training. It's the same with Medieval Knights who are Retinue Soldiers made up of Trusted Men and even Family Members making them much more well equipped than even the Semi Professional Soldiers in Europe.
@kenbrown2808 Well, depending on what you mean by organized, it defeats the whole reason for militias to exist. Wich is, being independent paramilitary groups... I think you get the idea.
@@Brazilian.Off.Duty.Cop. they defined a militia as being a cohesive group organized and trained under the command of the state governor. it's all documented in the Federalist papers.
Not just guns. A lot of better gear in general should be standard issue or even optional for purchase upgrades, but not always allowed. It’s all about who wins the contract bid.
A Pennsylvania rifle could still use paper powder/bullet cartridges in the same way the smoothbore could. They didnt have to use cloth patches. the paper from the cartridge was adequate enough to provide the needed rifling contact.
The reason is because the military has to equip 1.5million soldiers when a regular civilian on has to do 1-5 people depending on the size of their family. So the military is going to buy the cheapest stuff. Also the military has to keep everything more or less uniform across its self unlike civilians.
The American Revolutionary rifles were made in Pennsylvania for use in the new Kentucky territory which is were the confusion comes from. For cost I've seen one record for a trading post's prices from the late 1700s where it would take 8 buckskins to trade for a smoothbore civilian musket (which wouldn't have the bayonet lug) and 15 buckskins for a basic rifle (without the expensive brass furniture modern reproductions have led us to expect) so I'm not sure the cost was as important as the slower rate of fire for a rifled gun.
It's because even the military works within a limited budget, on top of needing to pay for a very large number of people. So some corners needed to be cut. Civilians on the other hand don't have such limits.
The only problem about military rifles is they often get re-issued to different service members throughout the whole cycle so it will wear down over time despite being cleaned inside and out by gunsmith maintenance. Imagine getting handed a weapon that has a million rounds fired through it. That’s how phenomenal M16s are
This is why some people dislike the M1911 as it got reissued to so many people, eventually as great of a pistol as it is it would begin to lower in quality as the use would slowly break it down turning one of the most legendary pistols into what amounts essentially garbage, despite the fact it has a more modern replacement back in 2017 that being the Sig Sauer M17 and M18 it has apparently found popularity within U.S. Army Special Operation units why use that over the more modern sig which gives you more ammo captaincy is beyond me not questioning just think it's weird mainly.
@@thadisturbedone1606 Well it wasn't just used in world war one it was used in World War Two, the Korean war, Vietnam, the Gulf war, and in the invasion of Iraq.
unlike them military, civilians have the freedom to customize and mess around with their firearms build you have alot more choices to go with it can either be way above or below average depends on your personal budget but in the military's defense when you have to outfit millions of troops in equipment you just need something that works and can get the job done after all its civilians paying for it and if they decided to outfit troops in super expensive kits that means the govt would have to tax more from us
I think part of the reason people lean into military issue weapons is, because it meets the standard of, "Good enough to send to war." In the civilian world you can get far better stuff, but you need the knowledge to know what you're buying since the only consistent standard for civilian weapons is, "Good enough to not get sued."
Guys in the army and the marines already have a strong bond,the bond of being in the US military. This includes every branch also,civilians can't understand this bond unless they've served in the military.
I was told in bootcamp my rifle was made by the lowest bidder. Civilians expect their firearms to last a lifetime while the military expects to loose a lot of their firearms. This means military firearms need to be replaceable at a massive scale. There is no need to make a firearm that will last a century when you expect the firearm will be lost in months.
Roger that . I'm US Navy veteran , Operations Specialist and MP . I've fired more rounds downrange in my personal life than I did while in service . Infantrymen get a lot of training in marksmanship . Especially in the US Marine Corps . But a dedicated veteran or civilian can fire a lot more ammo in training than the military expends . Since leaving the navy I've set up a reloading bench and craft my own ammunition with a few friends . SHTF I'm carrying my 7mm Remington Magnum rifle with handloaded ammo .
@@victorwaddell6530 I disagree with you,amigo,a dedicated veteran or civilian doesn't fire more ammo in their training than infantry units,I doubt that.This coming from an infantry man with 4 combat tours in Iraq.Vets and civilians train for their own purposes,infantry units train/fire weapons for their lives. My first tour in Iraq me and my infantry unit did combat missions for 1 yr & 6 months,then I turned around ( after going back to Ft Hood,Tx -now Ft Cavazos for 5 months ) and did another year of combat missions in Iraq.
It goes even further than that the ‘tools of empire’ doctrine insured that colonial Americans would be able to own the most destructive weapons available to any nation. Any device including cannons, ships of the line, etc was available to any private party (to combat Barbary pirates) . It would be like allowing citizens to have nukes and ICBMs today
During the Boer War, civilian Boers used expanding rounds they had used against dangerous animals. These rounds are now considered a war crime, so all military rounds have a full metal jacket.
same could be said for gear as well. While the standard issued body armor is a bulky and heavy IOTV, civilians and individuals in certain units can purchase a much lighter and slimmer plate carrier, making it 10x easier to move around in and reduces fatigue. Ear pro is another. While the "standard issue" are the foamies plugs, you can also purchase over ear protection that are easier to take on and off, can integrate into comms, and can be mounted directly onto helmets. I think a main example of "soldiers buying their own gear" are soldiers almost immediately buying a new pair of aftermarket boots upon graduation basic/osut since the standrd issued boots are like cinderblocks tied to your feet
Yeah the unsubscribe podcast (veterans) talked about this. The US military equips their forces based on a military cost that is sustainable with rifles based on certain MOA acceptance. However if your wealthy enough you can buy barrels for the AR-15 or your M4 or M16 if your a veteran that is basically the same cost as the rifle cost (I believe $1200-1400) of the military which has insane accuracy MOA with no production flaws. This means your can technically have a better accurate and more consistent firing rifle (less jams) if you pay more as a civilian. Of course this goes both ways where if your buying really cheap weapons means your accuracy will be the same as Trump's attempted assassin where he couldn't even hit his target at 120 yards.
@Youthsoldiers1992 like an m240? Which we also can't buy without a license, a list and a hefty HEFTY price tag? Or an m60? An at4? A 40mm? (Which you can't even find the 40mm sizes outside the military, police use a 38mm strictly for that reason) there are more specialized rifles available to be sure, but who says they're worth what civilians pay for em? Particularly in this age where they try to price you out of going to the range by making some bullets almost prohibitively expensive? I remember going to a range once in Graphenwehr (sic) and being told we didn't want to bring any of the at4s or javelins back, so we needed to try to fire them all. I'm just saying.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow Not a M240 but you can get the FN MAG that its based off of since its pre 1986 you can then modify it with parts to be more similar to a M240.
Civilian market upgrades guns continuously since there are always new buyers, meanwhile military equipment is based on long term contract, which is expected to be used for a very long term without buying a new one. That long term is long enough for civilian market to upgrade guns very significantly
yeah the military cant possibly afford a $3000 gun for a million soldiers. but joe on the street who saved up a couple paychecks can and will buy one for themself
Also you forgot you can still buy a FFL they only cost 2000 dollars and the license lasts for 6 years. the FFL allows you to buy build and design machine guns. The only requirement is the same as buying a normal rifle.
My favorite line on this is when a YT commenter said “look at all of these military grade weapons that he has!!! No one needs that!” And the response was “this are WAY Better than military grade!”
@1:24 oh here we go, the AR-15 is the civilian version of the air forces AR-10 which was made for civilian years after the ar-15 debuted. the main difference between the 10 an 15 was the chambering
@@Golgo1412 it was definitely started way before the NRA existed. The NRA isn't that big on gun rights if you read into their platform and were openly anti gun until the 70s
@8:12. Not entirely correct, Custer had gatling guns available to him but he didn't bring it with him and his soldiers. If he had brough them they would have had superior firepower. It's his recklessness and impulsiveness that his men were outgunned.
He also cut his iconic long hair just before that battle which was the main reason his body was not mutilated after the battle because the natives were looking for someone with long hair.
This may have been true in the past, but current military weaponry far surpasses civilian weapons. Take one look at the amount of money budgeted for weaponry and you’ll see what I mean. The military industrial complex is undefeated.
You are not correct. The M16 I was issued in Iraq would literally rattle if you gripped it by the stock and shook it, it couldn't mount accessories to the handguard, the only way to mount optics to it was with a janky cantilever arm mounted on the carry handle rear sight, and the stock was just about too long for everybody since it couldn't be adjusted. All of my AR15s solve those problems. They aren't worn out so the receivers fit together and don't rattle, the handguards are MLOK so I can mount lights, lasers and grips, and the upper receivers are A4/M4 pattern with Picatinny rails to mount optics. Not to mention superior metal finishes like hard chrome, nitride, and cerrokote which are either not used at all on the M16 or were used much more sparingly because technological and cost limitations from the days when the Military was first buying these rifles stick around even when those original technologies become cheaper/better or when new technology gets developed.
@ we were issued completely different weapons then. I was in an infantry battalion in Iraq around 2005 where we all got brand new M4’s with rails, acogs, PEQ laser pointers, and night vision optics the second we got into country. My last OEF deployment in 2013 saw our M4’s get shorter and lighter as well. Our military industrial complex now funnels billions of dollars towards research and is the main driver of weapons development, and it’s not even close.
We buy guns one or two at a time, not thousands at a time and the government goes with the lowest bidder because cost is a major factor. Though the US military does not always have an inferior weapon.
Most sniper rifles are designed by companies that started off in target shooting. Accuracy international was started by a few target shooters, they entered the bid for a UK sniper rifle and won. Military rifles have more clearance in their chambers to allow for ammo variation and to deal with debris ingress better. Target shooters also have clearance variation, a TR/Palma class shooter will run a fairly tight clearance action but because they shoot prone there is a just enough clearance in the bolt for fine dirt. Bench rest shooters will have even tighter clearances in their bolt and chamber as they are on a clean bench. Military ammo is often sealed with sealer on the primer and bullet to make the ammo waterproof, the bullet is also crimped in for use in full auto weapons. Target shooters ammo is handmade and has a bullet to case fit where dropping a box of ammo could move the bullets up or down in the case neck as the tension is low for accuracy. some sniper teams are allowed to use their own handmade ammo for better accuracy, but they would likely be using higher tension to hold the bullets in the case. Even though the ammo will only be used in a single shot sniper rifle, they still need to be sure if they drop a box of ammo the bullet seating depth stays unchanged.
The diffrence between millitary grade and civilion grade weapons is that one is made to be a quality product for one person and the other is a quality product for one million people.
The "before the Hughes Amendment" in 1986 is more of a limit in the US than the video implies. Everyone wants those and no one wants to sell them, so they can cost as much as a new car.
To create your one-of-a-kind website, check out! www.odoo.com/r/GCLp
Military are experts with their firearm a great firearm is worth nothing in untrained hands
Nice
Like video
Muzzle loading grenade launcher
Because Not Hating on the Military but
Civilians arnt covering up the existence of U.A.P Alians
During the civil war the Henry Repeater was never issued to soldiers but officers who could afford them purchased them privately.
Repeater is unreliable and very prone to jamming.
@@jeddvillaspin3379 At the battle of Gettysburg, no one in John Buford's cavalry unit was upset because they didn't have cap and ball. Everyone in the unit had a repeater. They held up a better part of a corp for hours because of rate of fire which allowed the Union to keep the high ground which ultimately won the battle.
@@joetato2227 Were they armed with the Spencer repeating rifle?
@@killzoneisa yes, Henry was not available in large numbers at that time
@@jeddvillaspin3379 Shut up, fudd.
‘Remember, your equipment was made by the lowest bidder’ -Old military axiom.
And it's true to this day. The lowest bidder that passes specifications asked.
@@elitemook4234 cough cough sig m17 cough
@@ja0298 Cry about it
@@Eagl3xStrik3I’m not crying about anything. The 320 is a terrible design and we all know it.
@@ja0298 Terrible gun. But I will say it fits my hand like a glove. I just wish it wasn't garbage
Whenever someone says "You don't need a military grade assault weapon" I just think man, my AR15 is better than military grade lol.
“You don’t need a gun, that’s what police are for!”
That’s like saying “You don’t need a fire extinguisher, that’s what the fire department is for!”
Dumb [nanny] statists.
@@princessmarlena1359you don't need a stove that's what chefs are for also falls into this category that my .357 wielding grandmother says to everyone who asks why she needs the revolver
@WeAre1Legion Impressive that she can have a .357
@princessmarlena1359 "you don't need a car, that's what legs are for" 😭😂
Lol, that's kinda works in Europe@@SharkyCartelRailroad
reminds me of hearing about pirates privately buying flintlock muskets to use in their raids while most european militaries were still using the older matchlock arquebuses
Hey if I stole my money fair and square id buy the best stuff with it too
Yes. An amazing example is buccaneers. They privately equipped themselves and sacked entire cities. They often proved to have far greater prowess than many Spanish armies and militias.
“That thing is a damn gimmick Sonny, I’d much rather have my trusty matchlock.”
Pirates? Nay, Privateers
Thank you for being fair and not attacking civilian gun ownership .
the ironic thing is i know you from a game you can buy a rocket launcher from a random gun store
There's 5% chance to see theprofessional or ghilliemaster on a random military/weapons video
The professional is based and 2A pilled? W?
@@glitch_skunkogenthe chaotic grammar of your comment makes it difficult to interpret.
Did you not see the thumbnail that characterizes armed American civilians as fat, drunk, slovenly hicks?
You missed a pretty critical factor: Other priorities.
Older guns are often considered good enough and the option isn't to get a new rifle with new optics but either a new gun or new optics and later on either a new gun or say nightvision or better ballistic protection.
Usually a major gun swap in a military happens only after the planned lifespan of the older model makes it a necessity.
There's also testing done, logistics, environment and such.
You can't just drop everything for the newest shiny in the market and a lot of weapons ideas/upgrades tend come from issues or needs troops have in the field and improving, that's why while unfortunate a lot of things come months after a military situation and another few months of testing
Or generals sit to get paid
@@j.pershing2197
A generals main job is thinking about what we are going to do tomorrow, next week, next month, next year and in the next war.
So yes a general should be sitting at a table drinking coffee more often than not.
there is also the factor that as far as inflicting battlefield casualties, infantry rifles are only a small minority in that. By far the most casualty producing weapons of war are artillery, aircraft, and armored vehicles. And even on the squad level the most casualty producing weapons aren't the M4's, its the Grenade launchers and machine guns, weapons not available to civilians.
Also keep in mind that when a weapon sticks with soldiers, they're VERY reluctant to swap it out. If it works, why fix it?
The truth about Milspec is that it’s just good enough.
Why be the best when you can be the lowest bidder?
Milspec = Low Bidder 😂😂😂
It's excellent to just good enough and everything in between. I've had a few m-16s issued to me, and I've qualified with them many times. The overall accuracy was shockingly different with the same shooter and conditions. Some I'd always group fantastically and reliably, some barely would.
@@wyattr7982 or when you can pay off someone or have them be on your BOD on exchange for a contract securement, like what sig did with the M17
Its different with weapons. Military weapons and their parts have to be manufactured to very strict specifications. There is a lot of government oversight built into a contract for a civilian company to manufacture government weapons. Colt had some of the best Quality Control in the business when they had the contract for the M4.
Ease of mass production, cost per unit, ammo type restrictions, ammo carrying capacity etc...
My No1 favorite rifle I own though is a old military rifle. A 1919 British 303, its action is butter smooth , shoots true and can hold 10 rounds in its magazine. I have had it for over 30 years and never plan to sale it. With the right hunting ammo it packs a mean punch.
You've had it for 30 yrs ,so you must've fired cordite rounds at some point? If you have would you say that cordite has such a distinct smell ,that nothing else smells like it ? I had a Enfield jungle carbine .
@@j.robertsergertson4513 I shot some military ammo in it many years ago when my late uncle left it to me before his passing. Yeah i remember it had a distinct smell but i switched to hunting rounds right afterwards. I Been using Hornady 164 GR, for years. They aint cheap but they are very good rounds. I have a brother that reloads me some for target practice. Mine has a custom wood stock ( not full length stock like military) that my uncle had put on it when he traded for it with some Japanese stuff he bought back from WW2. He gave me a Nambu that he had kept . Its been put away for years and never fired in my lifetime and i do not think my uncle ever fired it.
.303 is a proper hunting round, and I would love to see your gun, but I need to know, does it have the military furniture on it
@@danielhall6578 Other than the non military stock all else is original
This video is for countries like the USA where gun laws are quite relaxed.
India for example restricts civilians from getting any calibre or weapon that's in use by the military.
I'm friends with a couple of retired vets. One jumped out of planes for the Marines and the other jumped out of planes for the Army. I'm just a poor old retired Navy guy who's pushed more pens than bullets. But when my buddies wanted to get into civilian firearm ownership, I had to school them like they were almost brand new to guns. These were people who shot iron sights their entire careers, and I blew their minds when I introduced them to the... red dot! To civilians, guns and ammo come in a lot of different flavors with a ton of science behind it all. A soldier, for the most part, is just trained to be proficient in the weapon system they are handed or expected to encounter. Despite that, though, they are very capable war fighters. I mean that's their whole mission in life! Much more capable than most civilians because of their training. It's not the gun that's deadly. It's the man behind the gun that's deadly.
I'm a US Navy Operations Specialist and MP veteran . I've set up a reloading bench and taught some friends to reload ammo. I've taught them how to peer through a rifle scope like it's a radar screen , judge ranges , and calculate ballistics . My favorite rifle cartridge is 7mm Remington Magnum .
Cool strategy and thank you for your service as a navy seal.
I wasn't a SEAL , I was an OS Operations Specialist . SEAL rating is SO Special Operator . Thanks
Civilian resolve will beat any military.
@@casketman14 yes but if you were to combined both the military and the civilians together with each other weapons be working together would be a very terrifying force to mess with.
Militaries chase Jack of all trades, while civilians can min/max and get extremely OP builds that excels at one task.
Special forces get really cool toys compared to the average infantry though.
millitary the weapon and specs get chosen for you but as a civilian like you said can go either waaaay above or below average it depends on your budget
Jaegar it’s really you!
I can't believe my eyes
Military weapons need to be effective enough to do the job, cheap enough to obtain in the necessary quantity, and simple enough for anyone to maintain. Civilian weapons have less of a price limit, given the reduced quantity, and the complexity can be as great as the intelligence of the buyer rather than needing to match the lowest common denominator.
From expensive to cheap and low and high quality for the weaponry, equipment and technology to make them very useful and effective is well as reliable and in all forms of production.
Civilian arms have "reduced quantity"? Idunno about where you are, but last time I looked, the "population" of firearms (that are known about... this doesn't count the kazillion-or-so weapons that never had a serial number, and thus we have only a semi-educated guess at how many there actually are) in the hands of American civilians *RIGHT THIS INSTANT* is higher than the "population" of firearms held by *EVERY MILITARY ON THE PLANET COMBINED*. I'm thinking "reduced quantity" doesn't apply very well to civilian weaponry... Unless you're trying to say that civilian weapons are exchanged in "reduced quantities" - As in, one civilian says "I bought one gun yesterday/last week/last month" while the military says "We bought 10,000 guns yesterday/last week/last month". But even then it doesn't work so well - 'cause the more likely scenario is 20 or 30 thousand civilians saying "I bought one gun yesterday/last week/last month" for every time the military says "we bought 10,000".
Don't think intelligence has much to do with it
@@Ferd414
Civilian market guns are sold in low volumes, compared to military guns.
It took many years to to the population of civilian-owned AR to outpace the military AR- s.
Clicaln owned AR-s which are good the milspec Colt-s ar not nearly that numerous.
@@tyaty What's the higher volume? The 10, 20, even 30 thousand (and those are considered to be *VERY* conservative estimates) civilians who each buy *ONE GUN* today, which happens pretty much every day of the week, or the military who, every few - let's say 5, even though we know for certain it's less frequent than that - years, swings in and buys a batch of - oh, let's say 150 thousand as someplace to stand - every 5 years? Hint: Even at "only" 10 thousand per day, in less than a month (closer to 2 weeks) civilians buy more guns than the military buys in 5 years. And they don't STOP buying them after 5 days - They've still got 365 times 5 is - nah, not gonna bother to do the arithmetic, just gonna round it down to 1500 for easier math - days of buying to do, at 10 thousand guns per day. So after that 5 years/1500 days has passed, that'd be what? Somewhere north of FIFTEEN MILLION civilian purchases versus 150 thousand military purchases? Still wanna try to tell me that civilian sales are "low volume"?
Brandon Herrera for ATF Director!
AIPAC wouldn't let him even win Texas district 23...
Director Herrera has a nice ring to it
@@stevecooper7883 how many million dollars were spent to barely win against a RUclipsr again?
YES
If Brandon Herrera somehow made it to the ATF he'd implement an amnesty period and machine guns would be back in civilian hands.
Can you guys cover the history of guerrilla warfare tactics/strategies?
It could never be comprehensive. Quick way if you're really interested look up the tactics of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war. I say it can never be fully covered in a video because guerilla tactics constantly evolve. The Americans used guerilla tactics against the British by fighting like the American Indians, and the British were just pissed that the rebels didn't line up facing them in the early part of the war. The VC though made it an artform. Sorry it's long, history nerd.
This
fun fact guerrilla warfare was 'invented' by the Spanish
@@garyroche7905 False. It was invented by gorillas
You can find other channels covering this topic already.
But in short when the American settlers first came to the US and conflicts and wars broke out with the native Americans, they were stunned by their hit and run tactics, while the whites were used to open line formation warfare. So they learn to adopt them, they used it well in the south during the revolutionary war
Like the saying goes: "logistics logistics logistics." If you can't supply a sufficient amount of the equipment, the parts and tools needs for maintenance, as well as ammunition, you might as well not have that weapon at all. Civilians don't care that much if the weapon needs to be rezeroed every hundred shots or the stock replaced every time you bash it and that part takes a month to arrive. For a soldier, that might as well be the same difference between being fully equipped and half your squad sitting out of a firefight or fighting off enemies with stones.
Not to mention if the cost of a gun can becomes the difference between every squad having one LMG vs two plus a LAW.
Civilians don’t care because if put under strenuous situations, they’ll still come up on top due to other variables an attacking military can’t control.
Id kill for a 416, Uncle Sam! I love my M4 but please...
Is it that much different beyond having different recoil systems? Feel like the 416 was really cool for its time but less necessary now because the M4 has improved.
Time to join the USMC then
Join the Marine Corps bruh
Not the perfect solution, but brownells offer an American made 416 called the brn-4 compatible with hk 416 parts
@OperatorJackYT if i was able to join while in HS, i wouldve but Army was the only branch that has that option. But its 2 years too late for that haha, signed a long time ago
“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”
And arms does not strictly mean rifles and pistols
@@weswolever7477 battleships for example, just like Private citizens used to have
@nyet_maker7948
Good luck trying to get a battleship privately. Those things are expensive! And you need a crew.
@@mill2712 battleships are overrated, I prefer a truck-mounted howitzer.
@@mill2712John Hancock owed some.
Actually, civilians ARE allowed to own military grade fully automatic firearms that are made after 1986. They have to get an SOT license, or a federal firearms dealer license that allows them to purchase and own these firearms as long as they keep it updated, keep their record clean and pay the fees.
I _knew_ it! Thank you!
Shouldn’t need any of that
That supersedes the definition of civilian though.
As soon as your company (important word) files for a FFL 07/SOT, you (or rather your company/business) becomes a a *defense contractor* in the strictest sense of the word.
The ATF is not fulfilling FFL 07/SOT's for private civilians. As in, never. You must show at the very least, an intent to profit under your FFL 07.
Civilians can technically own full auto firearms in the US, but *only* pre-1986 registered (with price tags in the tens of, to hundreds of thousands of $).
Your basically right on the money however having an FFL07 SOT means you have to be in the business for profit, you can't just get an SOT because you want mgs, unfortunately
You can also form a trust.
Because the military and government serve the people, they dont rule above them. Also standardization is important to make logistics easier to maintain on scale.
I don't fully agree with your first sentence but your second sentence is true.
@justabearwithouteyes5332 Rephrased. Its supposed to be the responsibility of the government and military to protect the people
You really believe this 😂
They only serve as long a they are kept in check, and the people pay attention. Problem is, power shows true self (not power corrupts), and those with ruling intentions tend to get in power sneakily, and morph the laws to fit their agenda, which subsequently limits/removes the peoples power.
They totally rule above us 😂
Mass production of small arms gets costly when you need to appropriately outfit potentially millions of infantry, and in reality they aren't even the deciding factors of modern conflicts. So they get mass produced to be "functional enough" at the lowest cost. Even then reports are that "military" grade guns still function just fine. The issue is that weapons stay in service for incredibly long periods of time, getting recycled through countless infantrymen who they get assigned to only to get beatup and accumulate more and more wear and tear through the years.
Like when they sent vietnam, .308 ammo for .556 rifles, and Americans had. NO ammo for two weeks . Good thing the enemy didn't know that at the time. That happened to some of my dad's friends. Over there. He witnessed it first hand. He'd buy his own gear. The gear that mattered anyway. Its crazy. All the stories out there.
Sounds like another case of army ordinance core corruption. There was all sorts of intentional mismanagement just because it was in someone's interest to make sure springfield kept the contract to produce the M14 rather than being dethroned by the M16 being produced outside of the military circles. The number of lives that cost, there are alot of people who should have been put in jail for that.
This is also happening to the Russian army in Ukraine right now to a much more absurd degree, new soldiers are sometimes even told to buy their own body armour
Now, I'm not at all saying I'd be surprised if this happened...but are you being serious? That may be the most darkly humorous thing I've ever heard.
The military uses the metric system for most ammunition. A .556 round would be 55.6 caliber, the M-16 is a 5.56mm. I bet you’ve never been in the military, that 2 weeks without ammunition is a pinko lie.
0:27 is that paul harrell?
Top tier comment
PIN THIS COMMENT❤
If it isn't then this video is sadly inaccurate!
RIP
I’m just a retired Army Infantryman and most former Grunts I know maintain their own field gear and weapons, I guess we’re in the prepper category. And most civilians don’t know that we rarely use full auto or 3 round burst fire as we conduct missions, we train to use two well aim shots fired in rapid succession. And I also own a civilian version of the M-21 rifle because I was trained on that and graduated from the school to use it. Finding modern body armor, helmets, pro masks, field gear and everything else a grunt would need to conduct extended operations.
I think 2 round burst is better tbh, don't know a situation where you'd use full auto if you're not the machine gunner.
Full auto is just a waste of ammo, a single shot group compared to a full auto group on paper will tell you that it's in fact pointless to even have that fucntion.
@shanerorko8076 automatic fire isn't pointless, but it has a niche function. It's used in situations where a high volume of rapid fire is needed to quickly suppress an enemy, such as breaking through ambushes, close quarters engagements, and establishing fire superiority.
So, the US military had the opportunity to adopt the Henry and Winchester lever action rifles, but decided against the design because the lever would get in the way of prone shooting, and the design was weaker in melee (as if the 15 round magazine advantage didn't offset that).
The 15rds are only on pistol caliber rifles.
The Lever Action Rifles in actual rifle calibers hold the same as bolt action rifles.
Let's not forget how Lever Actions are way more complicated, weaker and less reliable than bolt Actions.
Trenches are a thing too
Shooting in one it's like shooting prone.
@@Brazilian.Off.Duty.Cop.may I interest you in an American shotgun?
Tests showed that in three minutes more bullets landed on target with muzzleloaders than repeaters.
2:40 my mans got 4 acogs on his gun
*cods +4 perk 😂😂
Average "Tarkov curse gun"
Nah 2 Elcan scopes and 2 ACOG scopes not trying to be smart but still
@@CapyComputerThey actually look like British SUSATS
I saw that ridiculousness and died of laughter. They didn't issue us the best equipment. I have better stuff now, than I had in the military.
Budget.
You are correct about that, GDP and Budget on arms sales and arm industry is how much money you put into with the resources needed to build, repair, replace and maintain your military a well armed arsenal and state of the art technologies for them to win wars is the cost of everything else that is made is very pricely and cheaper as long as you can keep the whole logistics and maintenance going.
Why's the budget even matter seems there's no budget placed on the munitions we give to ukr and the Self proclaimed chosen ones in that sandy hellhole.
1:10 The AR-15 was a fully automatic rifle which the m16 and m4 were based off of. The original m16 was the exact same gun as the AR-15, however AR-15 was Armalite’s name for it, and M16 was the military’s designation for it. Civilian semiautomatic versions were made after the m16 was adopted by the military. Also the AR-15 shown here appears to actually by an AR-10, which is basically an older version of the AR-15. An easy way to tell that it’s an AR-10 is the location of the charging handle below the sight/carry handle, similar to where it is on a Famas.
iirc the original M16 is an AR-15 Model 604 and the M4 is an AR-15 Model 920 right?
I think it’s fair to note that the both the select fire and semiauto versions of the AR15/10 were both technically “civilian” guns originally as back then (before 1986) civilians could buy new automatic weapons.
Ar 10 is 7,62x51 and divides into portuguese and sudanese
Great you can read Wikipedia. Now tell me the difference between .223 and 5.56 and why that matters.
Chamber pressure. Did you know in Afghanistan, insurgents would take pop shots from different mountain tops and yelling insults in broken English because 762 was more effective than 556 at range & we couldn't do anything. Anyone who thinks semi auto 556 is worth betting yourself on doesn't understand it was meant for full auto to be effective in modern combat. So many other military & civilian cartridges that wipe the floor with it if all you got is that super dangerous full semi auto lol@@rramos117
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 w range😂😂😂
Hey just what you see pal
@Wolf-wc1js hahaha
@@Wolf-wc1js Oozey Nein Millimitar
@@hentehoo27 you really know your weapons pal. Any one of them ideal for home defense. So which will it be?
Uzi nine millimeter, twelve gauge autoloader.
Civilians also have more options in regards to the chambering of their firearms. An AR-15 built for hubting in the mountains has far more range than the 5.56 rounds the military uses. A civilian can alternatively use an AR-15 with larger slower rounds for use in dense forests to keep scrub brush from throwing off their shot. Or a round like the 6.8 spc which is more focused on urban self-defense.
for real civillian equipment can either be WAY better than military or sub-par
Another thing to consider is that militaries have a tendency to be financially neglected, especially in peacetime. I was in the Canadian Army during the Cold War, inter-war period and the post 911 world. In that time, our issued sidearm was the WW2 vintage, Inglis manufactured Browning Hi Power. A potent firearm in it’s day, but a little long in the tooth by the time we had them. The Reserve unit I was in post-911 allowed Officers to purchase and carry our own personal sidearm, provided we purchased them legally (we require firearm licenses in Canada), we supplied our own magazines and if the caliber was not the standard issue 9mm, the acquisition of ammo was on the Officer and not the Crown. I chose a first generation Smith & Wesson M&P 9 for that purpose. Being a polymer frame, it was much lighter than the Hi Power. I liked the fact that it was a striker fire, so no external hammer and my model had no external safety but rather utilized the segmented trigger. Right out of the box, I was very impressed with the significantly tighter groupings I was getting, and the sights did not have to be adjusted one bit. Annual range qualifications were a piece of cake, because the standards were based on the clapped out old Hi Powers that had tens of thousands of rounds downrange before we touched them. Although I was never required to go into combat with my civilian purchased firearm, I would have done so if asked. I left the Canadian Army in 2012, but I retained my personal sidearm to this day which is now a much enjoyed range toy. Our current Government in Canada has made civilian ownership of certain firearms rather onerous, with the purchase, selling and transfer of handguns being “frozen” (aka illegal) so my sidearm I used in the defence of this country will unfortunately die with me unless things change. I understand that the Inglis Hi Powers are being retired after having served since the 1940s, replaced by Sig Sauer P225, 226 and 320s which are all good firearms, but purchased a few decades too late.
"Another thing to consider is that militaries have a tendency to be financially neglected, especially in peacetime."
And that's the way it should be. In fact, the very idea of a permanent standing military is a fairly recent one in the grand scheme of human history. For much of our history, only an extremely small force of professional soldiers would be maintained during peacetime as the personal household guard for local nobles or the monarch. Each noble would only have maybe a few dozen household guard at any given time, with particularly wealthy or powerful ones being able to field a force of a few hundred. When war broke out and larger armies were needed, the local peasantry would then be pressed into service with first a call for volunteers and then conscription if the required number of troops hadn't been met with enough volunteers.
Personally, I think the world would be a much more peaceful place if every nation de-industrialized their military and went back to that old way of doing things.
As another fun fact, Custer was given some Gatling Guns for his ill-fated expedition, but he declined to use them. Why? Because, in his own words, they would "slow his march."
While it's debatable whether it would've _actually_ slowed down Custer's troops, had he brought them along, the Battle of Little Bighorn could have turned out _quite_ differently.
Doubt it
Custer is a complete idiot 🤦♂️
Frankenrifles made from 3 wore out junk rifles to make a " new" one for service is another reason civilian rifles tend to be better quality plus you can really tweak your own with custom trigger groups, tougher bolt carriers , better optics, etc
This breakdown regarding the advantages of civilian firearms was very interesting, well done. Even though the line between military and civilian guns is blurred(full-auto capability aside) the reason for why they're considered better is also because of cost and logistics as well as many other factors. Btw your thumbnails are getting more and more creative👍👍.
When I was in the military I used the M-4, M-14, M-21, 870 Pump shotgun, and M-9 PISTOL. Overall I would say my weapons performed excellent and to peak combat effectiveness. My armor was a sharp dude who was OCD about his weapons he issued out. I felt capable and on point when I knew he gave the weapon the OKAY
I spent 6years as a supply clerk for the army reserves, our military chooses the cheapest bidder on most mass produced military products. Most of the equipment in circulation is old and outdated and they have no plans to retire and replace most of it. The stuff that they buy quality, isn't used often enough to justify having. My unit was strictly admin, no combat roles at all, and we had enough $5000 thermal scopes for 30sum troops, not one of us was qualified to use them, not a single one. We had an equal number of acogs, only three were certified to use, out of the 30sum we kept.... We had vehicles that we had no use for and nobody certified to do repairs. Meanwhile, we had privates sharing motel rooms with officers during drill because our unit couldn't afford better accommodations during training periods.
Military needs to buy weapons in large quantities, while standardizing logistics, maintenance, and training.
Yes! The military needs to buy more of the civilian weaponry and equipment we have. Logistics, maintenance, and training are very much important in case if they were to fight against any enemy.
Military grade. It's a catchy phrase that gets thrown around to evoke feelings such as quality and ruggedness. In reality, military grade means "whatever's the cheapest option that gets the job done in a more or less reasonable time".
A lesson to remember on the field, soldiers: your equipment was manufactured by the cheapest bidder.
at a buffet, i personally sneak corndogs into the buffet so others can enjoy them. I hide 6 corndogs in my jacket pockets. it then, is a joy for me to see other patrons of the establishment eat my corndogs thinking they were part of the buffet.
lol i love this comment 😂😂😂😂😂
😮
Based behavior
Do you have a pre-warmed corndog holster?
A burrito bandolier?
Or just hot pockets?
Thank you for your service King
The AR15 started as the AR10 battle rifle, essentially the same but chambered in the larger 7.62 NATO. It was not purchased or adopted by anyone. But a few years later the USAF wanted to replace the M1 carbines they were mostly using with a new rifle. The AR15 specs are based on what the USAF wanted and was released as a civilian weapon afterwards. That being said, no good reason you should not be able to buy one if you want one.
Also, mil spec is a minimum standard but it is not automatically trash. They are often test fired and such while being designed to handle a service life of at least X rounds (this will vary) usually 7500 or more. this includes being able to handle x amount of dirt, weather, etc.
The current M4 will cost from 6-700 dollars depending on lot size, procurement times, etc. The lot size is the biggest factor, most civilians aren't going to buy 50,000 at once for the volume discount. If you are paying less than twice the per unit cost, then you might not (Brands will differ) have a rifle that meets mil spec standards.
And don't forget the one weapon a soldier will have access to that a civilian will not. A radio that can call in support. Air, Artillery, even Naval if it's in range. Look at about the 47 minute mark of 'Tomorrow, When The War Began'. The one boy actually had a captured mil spec rifle but it proved useless against the missiles fired by the jet fighter.
The simple reason is that the military has to budget for what is good enough at an economy of scale. The individual civilian can justify spending more on himself than Uncle Sam can justify spending on the individual soldier when he has to arm hundreds of thousands of them.
Small correction, the M-16 isn't a full auto version of the colt 601/AR-15. It's just a pre 1986 601/AR-15. Pre 1986 you could get full auto 601s from colt, though rare, they were full auto from the factory and sold to civilians. The M-16 is merely a civilian rifle of the time with a different stamp on the side
Nice vid man
While Carlos Hathcock was truly a great USMC sniper. The top USMC sniper in the war in Vietnam was Chuck Mawhinney. Hathcock had 93 Kia while Mawhinney had 103.
Gun is Gun, and Americans should be able to own any gun
Amen
The M24 used by the US Army is also based on the Remmington 700. The difference between it and the Marine Corp M40 is that the army version is based on the Remmington 700 long action, and the marine version is the short action. The long action is absolutely the superior weapon.
The .45-70 ammo was copper cased not copper jacketed, it was just a cast lead bullet with no jacket. They actually fixed the failure to extract issue by switching to brass cases.
A Quick Reminder that During the Classical Age, the Roman Legionaries are not as well equipped as a Celtic/Gallic Ambacti.
Basically while Roman Legionaries are Professional Soldiers who get their equipment from the States, the Celtic/Gallic Ambacti(Retinue Warriors) are Warriors chosen by Chiefs who would get the best arms, armor and Training.
It's the same with Medieval Knights who are Retinue Soldiers made up of Trusted Men and even Family Members making them much more well equipped than even the Semi Professional Soldiers in Europe.
Medieval Knights were trained since when they were child
Well regulated, means well trained. 2A baby!
no, well regulated means organized. well trained means well trained, and well armed means well armed.
@ I got 103 likes, suck it.
@kenbrown2808 Well, depending on what you mean by organized, it defeats the whole reason for militias to exist. Wich is, being independent paramilitary groups... I think you get the idea.
@@Brazilian.Off.Duty.Cop. they defined a militia as being a cohesive group organized and trained under the command of the state governor. it's all documented in the Federalist papers.
@@kenbrown2808 FALSE
Not just guns. A lot of better gear in general should be standard issue or even optional for purchase upgrades, but not always allowed. It’s all about who wins the contract bid.
Civilians are entitled to have the same or better weapons than the military. Any limits on the people in regards to firearms are unconstitutional.
This was a very interesting and well-balanced presentation. I appreciated the non-biased approach.
A Pennsylvania rifle could still use paper powder/bullet cartridges in the same way the smoothbore could. They didnt have to use cloth patches. the paper from the cartridge was adequate enough to provide the needed rifling contact.
I had no idea the warriors at Little Bighorn were packing better guns lol. Now it makes even more sense.
The thumbnail goes hard
The reason is because the military has to equip 1.5million soldiers when a regular civilian on has to do 1-5 people depending on the size of their family. So the military is going to buy the cheapest stuff. Also the military has to keep everything more or less uniform across its self unlike civilians.
The American Revolutionary rifles were made in Pennsylvania for use in the new Kentucky territory which is were the confusion comes from. For cost I've seen one record for a trading post's prices from the late 1700s where it would take 8 buckskins to trade for a smoothbore civilian musket (which wouldn't have the bayonet lug) and 15 buckskins for a basic rifle (without the expensive brass furniture modern reproductions have led us to expect) so I'm not sure the cost was as important as the slower rate of fire for a rifled gun.
It's because even the military works within a limited budget, on top of needing to pay for a very large number of people. So some corners needed to be cut.
Civilians on the other hand don't have such limits.
The only problem about military rifles is they often get re-issued to different service members throughout the whole cycle so it will wear down over time despite being cleaned inside and out by gunsmith maintenance. Imagine getting handed a weapon that has a million rounds fired through it. That’s how phenomenal M16s are
This is why some people dislike the M1911 as it got reissued to so many people, eventually as great of a pistol as it is it would begin to lower in quality as the use would slowly break it down turning one of the most legendary pistols into what amounts essentially garbage, despite the fact it has a more modern replacement back in 2017 that being the Sig Sauer M17 and M18 it has apparently found popularity within U.S. Army Special Operation units why use that over the more modern sig which gives you more ammo captaincy is beyond me not questioning just think it's weird mainly.
You don’t know what your talking about
You don’t know what your talking about
@@Vasher-The-Destroyer are you sure it's not just because 8 rounds starts to suck when your enemies aren't using mainly bolt action rifles?
@@thadisturbedone1606 Well it wasn't just used in world war one it was used in World War Two, the Korean war, Vietnam, the Gulf war, and in the invasion of Iraq.
*watches this from a country where carrying a fork is illegal* "I can definetly relate to this"
If civilians have better guns than the military then I think that says more about the military than civilians
it's the same reason why they have worse food, they have to make a lot of it for the least money possible, you can spend it up.
Yes - it says that the military doesn't neglect artillery, air force, tanks, anti-tank weaponry, and other pieces of equipment.
@@roadent217 well they shouldn’t neglect anything, everything should function as well as possible
unlike them military, civilians have the freedom to customize and mess around with their firearms build you have alot more choices to go with it can either be way above or below average depends on your personal budget but in the military's defense when you have to outfit millions of troops in equipment you just need something that works and can get the job done after all its civilians paying for it and if they decided to outfit troops in super expensive kits that means the govt would have to tax more from us
I think part of the reason people lean into military issue weapons is, because it meets the standard of, "Good enough to send to war." In the civilian world you can get far better stuff, but you need the knowledge to know what you're buying since the only consistent standard for civilian weapons is, "Good enough to not get sued."
Bring back allowing service members to keep/buy their service weapons. There's a bond that no one else will understand.
Right? Why fight for a country that wants to disarm you as a citizen?
Guys in the army and the marines already have a strong bond,the bond of being in the US military. This includes every branch also,civilians can't understand this bond unless they've served in the military.
If you run out of ammo for your custom monstrosity in a firefight, Private Bob can't spot you a mag of 5.56 from his M4 or something.
@@mirceazaharia2094 I don't think you read it right...
@@mirceazaharia2094 why couldn't they share mags if the "custom monstrosity " still uses 556?
I was told in bootcamp my rifle was made by the lowest bidder. Civilians expect their firearms to last a lifetime while the military expects to loose a lot of their firearms. This means military firearms need to be replaceable at a massive scale. There is no need to make a firearm that will last a century when you expect the firearm will be lost in months.
its the responsibility of every American to be equally, if not greater; trained, armed and equipped then any infantrymen on the planet
Better trained any infantryman on the planet ??? I highly doubt that,amigo,I really do.
Only an American could think that to be possible
Roger that . I'm US Navy veteran , Operations Specialist and MP . I've fired more rounds downrange in my personal life than I did while in service . Infantrymen get a lot of training in marksmanship . Especially in the US Marine Corps . But a dedicated veteran or civilian can fire a lot more ammo in training than the military expends . Since leaving the navy I've set up a reloading bench and craft my own ammunition with a few friends . SHTF I'm carrying my 7mm Remington Magnum rifle with handloaded ammo .
@@victorwaddell6530 I disagree with you,amigo,a dedicated veteran or civilian doesn't fire more ammo in their training than infantry units,I doubt that.This coming from an infantry man with 4 combat tours in Iraq.Vets and civilians train for their own purposes,infantry units train/fire weapons for their lives. My first tour in Iraq me and my infantry unit did combat missions for 1 yr & 6 months,then I turned around ( after going back to Ft Hood,Tx -now Ft Cavazos for 5 months ) and did another year of combat missions in Iraq.
It goes even further than that the ‘tools of empire’ doctrine insured that colonial Americans would be able to own the most destructive weapons available to any nation. Any device including cannons, ships of the line, etc was available to any private party (to combat Barbary pirates) . It would be like allowing citizens to have nukes and ICBMs today
The cooperation between civilian and soldier in your animation is so wholesome
Theodore Roosevelt: A bullet can’t stop the Bull Moose!
.....wow..... this was amazingly accurate. I mean I always thought of you as a good source but it's nice to see it confirmed.
Imagine getting fucked up by sm bois with lever action rifles while you are using a long reloading single shot rifle
During the Boer War, civilian Boers used expanding rounds they had used against dangerous animals. These rounds are now considered a war crime, so all military rounds have a full metal jacket.
2:20 the marines walk like they just got a wedgy from the baddest and meanest gunny 🤣
same could be said for gear as well. While the standard issued body armor is a bulky and heavy IOTV, civilians and individuals in certain units can purchase a much lighter and slimmer plate carrier, making it 10x easier to move around in and reduces fatigue. Ear pro is another. While the "standard issue" are the foamies plugs, you can also purchase over ear protection that are easier to take on and off, can integrate into comms, and can be mounted directly onto helmets. I think a main example of "soldiers buying their own gear" are soldiers almost immediately buying a new pair of aftermarket boots upon graduation basic/osut since the standrd issued boots are like cinderblocks tied to your feet
Yeah the unsubscribe podcast (veterans) talked about this. The US military equips their forces based on a military cost that is sustainable with rifles based on certain MOA acceptance. However if your wealthy enough you can buy barrels for the AR-15 or your M4 or M16 if your a veteran that is basically the same cost as the rifle cost (I believe $1200-1400) of the military which has insane accuracy MOA with no production flaws. This means your can technically have a better accurate and more consistent firing rifle (less jams) if you pay more as a civilian. Of course this goes both ways where if your buying really cheap weapons means your accuracy will be the same as Trump's attempted assassin where he couldn't even hit his target at 120 yards.
Military doesn’t want a ton overpriced weapons that while amazing, aren’t worth the immense price.
Do they? I haven't noticed a mk19 on my vehicle lately. Was i napping?
Just speaking hand held weapons my guy, obviously we can't go down to our local Chevy dealer and put a down payment on a M1 Abrams 😆
@Youthsoldiers1992 My medicinal M1 A2 Abrams
@Youthsoldiers1992 like an m240? Which we also can't buy without a license, a list and a hefty HEFTY price tag? Or an m60? An at4? A 40mm? (Which you can't even find the 40mm sizes outside the military, police use a 38mm strictly for that reason) there are more specialized rifles available to be sure, but who says they're worth what civilians pay for em? Particularly in this age where they try to price you out of going to the range by making some bullets almost prohibitively expensive? I remember going to a range once in Graphenwehr (sic) and being told we didn't want to bring any of the at4s or javelins back, so we needed to try to fire them all. I'm just saying.
You can purchase one if you have the money.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennow Not a M240 but you can get the FN MAG that its based off of since its pre 1986 you can then modify it with parts to be more similar to a M240.
3:30 "Have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to, BLOW OVER."
0:50 Valmet M83 spotted! I have one chambering 308.
Now I know where to steal one from.
@johnbaier6385 You sir, are as brave as raiders with tire iron in Fallout New Vegas.
@@kassugonanlahti1320 but we do need to talk about your car's extended warranty...
@@johnbaier6385 No need for car warranties. I have only Skoda :(
Even in WW2 there were civilians taking weapons into war because they fit a certain role better than what the military would give them.
0:50 gta ahh gun shop
Kid, have you ever seen an actual gun shop?
Civilian market upgrades guns continuously since there are always new buyers, meanwhile military equipment is based on long term contract, which is expected to be used for a very long term without buying a new one.
That long term is long enough for civilian market to upgrade guns very significantly
yeah the military cant possibly afford a $3000 gun for a million soldiers. but joe on the street who saved up a couple paychecks can and will buy one for themself
I’ve seen better $900 rifles at Palmetto state than anything we have in the Army JS
Anti-gunners: "YOU DONT NEED A MILITARY STYLE WEAPON REEEE!"
Me: Youre right, I need something better.
Because money, thats why.
Also you forgot you can still buy a FFL they only cost 2000 dollars and the license lasts for 6 years.
the FFL allows you to buy build and design machine guns.
The only requirement is the same as buying a normal rifle.
This pretty cool
My favorite line on this is when a YT commenter said “look at all of these military grade weapons that he has!!! No one needs that!” And the response was “this are WAY Better than military grade!”
0:45 gta5 reference
@1:24 oh here we go, the AR-15 is the civilian version of the air forces AR-10 which was made for civilian years after the ar-15 debuted. the main difference between the 10 an 15 was the chambering
I’m too European to understand the concept of ‘civilian firearms’.
But there are European firearm owners, I know a few of them
@@Golgo1412 it was definitely started way before the NRA existed. The NRA isn't that big on gun rights if you read into their platform and were openly anti gun until the 70s
It's not that you're European, it's just you don't have the right friends.
Never been to Switzerland. Austria oder Czech Republic?
As a European civilian with currently 6 firearms, I don't see the issue
@8:12. Not entirely correct, Custer had gatling guns available to him but he didn't bring it with him and his soldiers. If he had brough them they would have had superior firepower. It's his recklessness and impulsiveness that his men were outgunned.
He also cut his iconic long hair just before that battle which was the main reason his body was not mutilated after the battle because the natives were looking for someone with long hair.
Military grade= Mass produced by the lowest bidder.
4:05 the GI gun shop shopping scene is killing me
This may have been true in the past, but current military weaponry far surpasses civilian weapons. Take one look at the amount of money budgeted for weaponry and you’ll see what I mean. The military industrial complex is undefeated.
You are not correct. The M16 I was issued in Iraq would literally rattle if you gripped it by the stock and shook it, it couldn't mount accessories to the handguard, the only way to mount optics to it was with a janky cantilever arm mounted on the carry handle rear sight, and the stock was just about too long for everybody since it couldn't be adjusted. All of my AR15s solve those problems. They aren't worn out so the receivers fit together and don't rattle, the handguards are MLOK so I can mount lights, lasers and grips, and the upper receivers are A4/M4 pattern with Picatinny rails to mount optics. Not to mention superior metal finishes like hard chrome, nitride, and cerrokote which are either not used at all on the M16 or were used much more sparingly because technological and cost limitations from the days when the Military was first buying these rifles stick around even when those original technologies become cheaper/better or when new technology gets developed.
@ we were issued completely different weapons then. I was in an infantry battalion in Iraq around 2005 where we all got brand new M4’s with rails, acogs, PEQ laser pointers, and night vision optics the second we got into country. My last OEF deployment in 2013 saw our M4’s get shorter and lighter as well. Our military industrial complex now funnels billions of dollars towards research and is the main driver of weapons development, and it’s not even close.
Muzzle loading rifles could use a premade paper cartridge. They could be made by the individual. They were made on mass during the civil war.
Being cheap can cost you your life
We buy guns one or two at a time, not thousands at a time and the government goes with the lowest bidder because cost is a major factor. Though the US military does not always have an inferior weapon.
Damn got here fast
I know
Most sniper rifles are designed by companies that started off in target shooting. Accuracy international was started by a few target shooters, they entered the bid for a UK sniper rifle and won.
Military rifles have more clearance in their chambers to allow for ammo variation and to deal with debris ingress better.
Target shooters also have clearance variation, a TR/Palma class shooter will run a fairly tight clearance action but because they shoot prone there is a just enough clearance in the bolt for fine dirt. Bench rest shooters will have even tighter clearances in their bolt and chamber as they are on a clean bench.
Military ammo is often sealed with sealer on the primer and bullet to make the ammo waterproof, the bullet is also crimped in for use in full auto weapons. Target shooters ammo is handmade and has a bullet to case fit where dropping a box of ammo could move the bullets up or down in the case neck as the tension is low for accuracy.
some sniper teams are allowed to use their own handmade ammo for better accuracy, but they would likely be using higher tension to hold the bullets in the case. Even though the ammo will only be used in a single shot sniper rifle, they still need to be sure if they drop a box of ammo the bullet seating depth stays unchanged.
First. Love the channel ❤
The diffrence between millitary grade and civilion grade weapons is that one is made to be a quality product for one person and the other is a quality product for one million people.
i can only dream of auto weapon because here auto weapon are banned
The "before the Hughes Amendment" in 1986 is more of a limit in the US than the video implies. Everyone wants those and no one wants to sell them, so they can cost as much as a new car.