“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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 .
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@@999haunted the general public don't care about guns. Only in america where they think it's their fundamental right when in reality it started as some propaganda by the NRA
@@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
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.
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.
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 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.
It’d kind of bs people find legal loopholes to get modern guns like the HK UMP 45 which was made after that law I personally think that law is bs anyway
Keep in mind the 2nd amendment doesn't say the people have a right to keep and bear arms not suitable for the military..... Don't like it, change it, don't infringe upon it.
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.
Why? Because it isn't the competition to be the lowest bidder? Oh, and fielding enough of the new equipment to not have logistics go crazy takes quite some time, and soldiers don't want to carry arround even more weight than they already are.
The civilian weapons might be 'better' but civilians are not trained for combat. Playing 'Battlefield' or 'Enlisted' does not count as combat experience.
5 годин тому
Over 16 million "civilians" are military veterans who are indeed trained in and/or experienced in combat. There are 1,280,000 current members in law enforcement. There are 38 million hunters who are skilled in tracking, camouflage/concealment and consistent marksmanship. There are approximately 400 million firearms owned by US citizens, which is enough to arm every man, woman and child in the US and still have a surplus of over 68 million firearms including 500,000 fully automatic machine guns. In short, the US civilian population is the largest, most armed and most experienced militia in the world outnumbering all other militaries (including the US) combined.
Soldier's are issued one size fits all gear, most military equipment is just good enough for the job, is it the best, no, is it the worst ,usually no. As a civilian (if you have the money) you can buy highly specialized equipment that excels in a specific situation. I.E. an S.P.R., or a D.M.R., or anything you can afford like high experimental or cutting edge technology when it comes to optics. The military always lags behind because its hard to mass produce enough equipment to constantly keep soldier's up-to-date on the latest and greatest. Civilians also have the ability to test gear in ways the military can't or wont bother to. Why change something thats "just good enough". Why would a military get some random infantrymen a super high end rifle, when they can just get the general rifle with maybe an optic of some sort and call it a day? Billy the farmer can buy a 4,000 dollar giga AR-15 with a 2,000 dollar optic, and also test it to his hearts content (if he has the money). When I got out of the army and started making money and started buying all kinds of firearms and actually testing them my self and learned what rifles are good and what, and started researching what equipment is good while other equipment was lackluster or garbage, it became clear. Only specific military units get the latest and greatest (I.E. usually SF type units). Everyone else is given whatever the military is feeling like spending on them, which usually is just good enough.
Respectfully, I feel like this could/should of been a much longer video there is so much history to cover / real explanations to why some civilian firearms are more technologically advanced. I'm a firearms salesman by trade so if you have questions lmk.
Video is slightly messed leading, leaving out artillery pieces, the m2, M240, M249, M203, Grenades, plane's an other weaponry at the military use. Custer messed up not having a Gatling gun or two, among not using better tactics, and using terrain to his an his troops advantage.
Generally, aside from auto capability, civilians can get slightly better guns/"luxury" guns. If a gun was a significant improvement, the millitary would use it. And thats the key, slightly more accurate isnt worth the billions of dollars of replaceing old guns.
That's been a regular thing since the late 16th century. Back then civilians would buy handsomely made wheellocks and even breechloaders, while soldiers had to do with poorly made matchlocks. Lots of reasons are typically given for that: Early wheellocks and flintlocks were susceptible to elements and inadequate for the rigors of a military campaign; early breechloaders had lower muzzle velocity than muskets, etc. But the most important reason is: Advanced guns are far more expensive. During the American Civil War, for example, Spencer repeater rifles cost 40 dollars (60 grams of gold) while regular, muzzle loaded muskets cost 15. And brass-covered cartridges needed by repeaters were MUCH more expensive than manually opened and loaded paper cartridges used in muzzleloaders. Cannon fodder comes for free but somebody has to pay for weaponry, you know.
yes the military grade equipment is made by the lowliest bidder. for example when FN got the contract to make m16and m4 in 1988 FN under cut colts m16a2 bid at $57.50 so yes they are made cheap and as efficient as possible BUT they have to service 100,000+ guns, spare parts, the furniture for those guns, manuals and so on. the guns them selfs are made cheap for mass production and addition. the US adopted version of the Thompson was $200 in the 1940s before they simplified it to the m1 and to the m1a1.hence why the m3a1 was shy of $17 it was made cheap but you can expect it to last the deployment or have it destroyed in an assault because in war everything is expendable the troop and his or her gear. the bottom dollar is how cheap can we make something till it doesn't suck to hinder the troops or soldiers at large. like another example of that is the stock for the m4 rifles. originally the car15 stocks that had 1 position and the stock themselves where made out of aluminum and some time in the 90s or the 2000 they high standard company made a polymer replacement that saved the US ordnance money
If anyone wants to know how well prepared most militaries are, Australian forces got into a firefight in Vietnam against an opposing force 10x their strength. An ammunition run was made by a couple of brave helicopter pilots and ammunition for the soldiers Self Loading Rifles (FAL's with 20 Round Box magazines) were dropped for them, in the middle of combat. Unfortunately for those men however, the pilots dropped boxes of individual rounds of 7.62mm ammunition, meaning, in the heat of battle, Soldiers had to sit there inserting individual rounds into their magazines to be able to return fire.
Early in the civil war some would make improvised bayonets from knives to put on their civilian rifles. Wilson Creek MO Museum has a great example of this
I love the videos, but the thumbnail is a little weird, I’m no gun expert, but they’re all holding selector fire M-16’s I believe, and the civilians holding a Ruger American with no scope, I can tell you which one I’d rather have
It kinda depends on what you’re looking for. The M249 that I was issued was a fabulous weapon. However, the brand new M4 that I was issued was inferior to my weapons that I could get from the local gun dealer. A perfect example of Civilian Weapons being better than “Military Grade” weapons is the FAL. The thing sucks as a fully automatic weapon as well as burst fire due to the 7.62X51 NATO round being too powerful of a round to shoot accurately as a shoulder fire weapon. As a Semiautomatic rifle with a nice thermal scope and, good suppressor, it’s pretty incredible.
Well yes and no why your AR-15 might be better quality than the military M4 it still lacks select fire as well as the fact that the military has belt-fed 50 BMG machine guns belt fed 40 mm grenade launchers rocket launchers grenades and all other sorts of fun stuff to kill you with that so illegal for a civilian to own
That Winchester model 70 is what Hathcock used for his 1st tour, but the Remington 700 was used by him for his 2nd. That 700 also used 308 AKA 7.62x51.
The firearms disadvantage of the US Army during the Little Bighorn reminds me of the French military in Indochina against armies of Chinese bandits invading into Northern Vietnam and Laos at the turn of the last century(The Haw Wars). The Chinese bandits were regularly equipped with repeating rifles while the French soldiers were still mostly issued single shot Henry Martini rifles. The battle hardened Chinese bandits(remnants of the Taiping rebels that fled China) raped and pillaged the land, decimated the local government forces of the Siamese, Laotians and Vietnamese, and the only thing that stood in their way was the aggressive conquest of the French military.
I use preloaded ammo for my muzzleloading hunting rifle, even though its cap-lock there isn’t much difference, pre-measured powder could still be used you’d just have to keep a small horn with you to pour powder on the pan. Snipers in the revolutionary war used Pennsylvania rifles, at least the deadly ones did.
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."
Rifles could very well use pre-loaded paper cartridges. English riflemen used the Baker in such a way. Making the ball slightly smaller than the full bore of the rifle was common practice in combat roles.
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
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
‘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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.”
Thank you for being fair and not attacking civilian gun ownership .
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.
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
Brandon Herrera for ATF Director!
AIPAC wouldn't let him even win Texas district 23...
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.
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
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
@PopeOfTheBullpuptistChurch this is correct.
Great you can read Wikipedia. Now tell me the difference between .223 and 5.56 and why that matters.
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
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
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.
Theodore Roosevelt: A bullet can’t stop the Bull Moose!
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.
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.
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.
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
Nice vid man
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?
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.
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 🤦♂️
I’m too European to understand the concept of ‘civilian firearms’.
But there are European firearm owners, I know a few of them
@@999haunted the general public don't care about guns. Only in america where they think it's their fundamental right when in reality it started as some propaganda by the NRA
@@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?
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 grade= Mass produced by the lowest bidder.
The cooperation between civilian and soldier in your animation is so wholesome
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.
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.
Because money, thats why.
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.
Imagine getting fucked up by sm bois with lever action rifles while you are using a long reloading single shot rifle
My AR-15 may be a budget build, but it still kills.
We don’t, but whatever helps keep this channel high in views
2:40 my mans got 4 acogs on his gun
*cods +4 perk 😂😂
So a civilian rifle will beat an Abrams Tank....no, hence why Military weapons are better than civilians
My father have a lof of weapons like akm made in Cuba
And mosin nagant
And rpd machine gun
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.
It’d kind of bs people find legal loopholes to get modern guns like the HK UMP 45 which was made after that law I personally think that law is bs anyway
3:30 "Have a nice cold pint, and wait for all of this to, BLOW OVER."
Maybe quality difference. But most civilians can’t get select fire or full auto. That in its own is huge advantage.
0:50 gta ahh gun shop
Have you never been in a gun shop before?
Keep in mind the 2nd amendment doesn't say the people have a right to keep and bear arms not suitable for the military.....
Don't like it, change it, don't infringe upon it.
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
Why? Because it isn't the competition to be the lowest bidder? Oh, and fielding enough of the new equipment to not have logistics go crazy takes quite some time, and soldiers don't want to carry arround even more weight than they already are.
Being cheap can cost you your life
The guy who buys the rifle doesn't view the user as a consumable.
0:45 gta5 reference
The civilian weapons might be 'better' but civilians are not trained for combat.
Playing 'Battlefield' or 'Enlisted' does not count as combat experience.
Over 16 million "civilians" are military veterans who are indeed trained in and/or experienced in combat. There are 1,280,000 current members in law enforcement. There are 38 million hunters who are skilled in tracking, camouflage/concealment and consistent marksmanship. There are approximately 400 million firearms owned by US citizens, which is enough to arm every man, woman and child in the US and still have a surplus of over 68 million firearms including 500,000 fully automatic machine guns.
In short, the US civilian population is the largest, most armed and most experienced militia in the world outnumbering all other militaries (including the US) combined.
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.
the way he talks and the pistol models at 2:25 just breaks my OCD heart
Soldier's are issued one size fits all gear, most military equipment is just good enough for the job, is it the best, no, is it the worst ,usually no. As a civilian (if you have the money) you can buy highly specialized equipment that excels in a specific situation. I.E. an S.P.R., or a D.M.R., or anything you can afford like high experimental or cutting edge technology when it comes to optics. The military always lags behind because its hard to mass produce enough equipment to constantly keep soldier's up-to-date on the latest and greatest. Civilians also have the ability to test gear in ways the military can't or wont bother to. Why change something thats "just good enough". Why would a military get some random infantrymen a super high end rifle, when they can just get the general rifle with maybe an optic of some sort and call it a day? Billy the farmer can buy a 4,000 dollar giga AR-15 with a 2,000 dollar optic, and also test it to his hearts content (if he has the money). When I got out of the army and started making money and started buying all kinds of firearms and actually testing them my self and learned what rifles are good and what, and started researching what equipment is good while other equipment was lackluster or garbage, it became clear. Only specific military units get the latest and greatest (I.E. usually SF type units). Everyone else is given whatever the military is feeling like spending on them, which usually is just good enough.
Respectfully, I feel like this could/should of been a much longer video there is so much history to cover / real explanations to why some civilian firearms are more technologically advanced. I'm a firearms salesman by trade so if you have questions lmk.
Video is slightly messed leading, leaving out artillery pieces, the m2, M240, M249, M203, Grenades, plane's an other weaponry at the military use.
Custer messed up not having a Gatling gun or two, among not using better tactics, and using terrain to his an his troops advantage.
Generally, aside from auto capability, civilians can get slightly better guns/"luxury" guns.
If a gun was a significant improvement, the millitary would use it. And thats the key, slightly more accurate isnt worth the billions of dollars of replaceing old guns.
.....wow..... this was amazingly accurate. I mean I always thought of you as a good source but it's nice to see it confirmed.
I had no idea the warriors at Little Bighorn were packing better guns lol. Now it makes even more sense.
That is because we pay for, customize, personalize, and care for them, that is why.
Nice video as always
That's been a regular thing since the late 16th century. Back then civilians would buy handsomely made wheellocks and even breechloaders, while soldiers had to do with poorly made matchlocks.
Lots of reasons are typically given for that: Early wheellocks and flintlocks were susceptible to elements and inadequate for the rigors of a military campaign; early breechloaders had lower muzzle velocity than muskets, etc. But the most important reason is: Advanced guns are far more expensive. During the American Civil War, for example, Spencer repeater rifles cost 40 dollars (60 grams of gold) while regular, muzzle loaded muskets cost 15. And brass-covered cartridges needed by repeaters were MUCH more expensive than manually opened and loaded paper cartridges used in muzzleloaders. Cannon fodder comes for free but somebody has to pay for weaponry, you know.
Wait, what? Can I call for armored support or an air strike? How many ballistic missile subs y'all think I own?
This pretty cool
yes the military grade equipment is made by the lowliest bidder. for example when FN got the contract to make m16and m4 in 1988 FN under cut colts m16a2 bid at $57.50 so yes they are made cheap and as efficient as possible BUT they have to service 100,000+ guns, spare parts, the furniture for those guns, manuals and so on. the guns them selfs are made cheap for mass production and addition. the US adopted version of the Thompson was $200 in the 1940s before they simplified it to the m1 and to the m1a1.hence why the m3a1 was shy of $17 it was made cheap but you can expect it to last the deployment or have it destroyed in an assault because in war everything is expendable the troop and his or her gear. the bottom dollar is how cheap can we make something till it doesn't suck to hinder the troops or soldiers at large. like another example of that is the stock for the m4 rifles. originally the car15 stocks that had 1 position and the stock themselves where made out of aluminum and some time in the 90s or the 2000 they high standard company made a polymer replacement that saved the US ordnance money
Well, it’s true civilians can get access to better grade equipment than the military.
The military curb stops the civilians in training.
If anyone wants to know how well prepared most militaries are, Australian forces got into a firefight in Vietnam against an opposing force 10x their strength.
An ammunition run was made by a couple of brave helicopter pilots and ammunition for the soldiers Self Loading Rifles (FAL's with 20 Round Box magazines) were dropped for them, in the middle of combat.
Unfortunately for those men however, the pilots dropped boxes of individual rounds of 7.62mm ammunition, meaning, in the heat of battle, Soldiers had to sit there inserting individual rounds into their magazines to be able to return fire.
Early in the civil war some would make improvised bayonets from knives to put on their civilian rifles. Wilson Creek MO Museum has a great example of this
I love the videos, but the thumbnail is a little weird, I’m no gun expert, but they’re all holding selector fire M-16’s I believe, and the civilians holding a Ruger American with no scope, I can tell you which one I’d rather have
It kinda depends on what you’re looking for. The M249 that I was issued was a fabulous weapon. However, the brand new M4 that I was issued was inferior to my weapons that I could get from the local gun dealer. A perfect example of Civilian Weapons being better than “Military Grade” weapons is the FAL. The thing sucks as a fully automatic weapon as well as burst fire due to the 7.62X51 NATO round being too powerful of a round to shoot accurately as a shoulder fire weapon. As a Semiautomatic rifle with a nice thermal scope and, good suppressor, it’s pretty incredible.
Well yes and no why your AR-15 might be better quality than the military M4 it still lacks select fire as well as the fact that the military has belt-fed 50 BMG machine guns belt fed 40 mm grenade launchers rocket launchers grenades and all other sorts of fun stuff to kill you with that so illegal for a civilian to own
That Winchester model 70 is what Hathcock used for his 1st tour, but the Remington 700 was used by him for his 2nd. That 700 also used 308 AKA 7.62x51.
Because "Take confidence soldier in knowing that your weapon... was built by the lowest bidder."
The firearms disadvantage of the US Army during the Little Bighorn reminds me of the French military in Indochina against armies of Chinese bandits invading into Northern Vietnam and Laos at the turn of the last century(The Haw Wars). The Chinese bandits were regularly equipped with repeating rifles while the French soldiers were still mostly issued single shot Henry Martini rifles. The battle hardened Chinese bandits(remnants of the Taiping rebels that fled China) raped and pillaged the land, decimated the local government forces of the Siamese, Laotians and Vietnamese, and the only thing that stood in their way was the aggressive conquest of the French military.
These gun suppliers charge 10x more hat they are worth to the military Ar-15 to the military 25k ar-15 to a civilian 800
I use preloaded ammo for my muzzleloading hunting rifle, even though its cap-lock there isn’t much difference, pre-measured powder could still be used you’d just have to keep a small horn with you to pour powder on the pan. Snipers in the revolutionary war used Pennsylvania rifles, at least the deadly ones did.
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."
Rifles could very well use pre-loaded paper cartridges. English riflemen used the Baker in such a way. Making the ball slightly smaller than the full bore of the rifle was common practice in combat roles.
I can hear the anti gun Europeans subjects crying already 😂
Me: *shopping for tactical stuff*
Website: "MILITARY GRADE!"
Me: "no thanks"
Last time i was this early blackpowder rifles just got adopted
Depends on the civilian money lol