Military grade?

[USNRet93]

Not really sure how to aproach this w/o somebody yelling at me but as a guy who lives in a VERY liberal part of CO..With the internet, anybody can google 'M16' and look at a picture of it and see the caliber, '5.56'..that will mean nothing to the person who knows nothing about guns but what they see is what a M16 looks like, those 'numbers' 5.56, and know that's what the US military was issued when and if they 'went to war'..

Then forward to a 'mass shooting'..and the description/picture of the weapon...or pictures from Gun Show or Gun Store, USA...ARs, black, scary looking, that look an awful like that 'M-16'...THAT'S why Suzie SoccerMom and Jerry IBMEmployee call these things 'weapons of war.

I don't know any answer..maybe paint them blue? BUT the design of ARs you see everyday at GunShow USA or GunStore USA enforce the propaganda for the non gun people.

The below are commercially available AR platforms..

BTW-NOT making any political statement but just mentioning what I see and hear from the trenches in the 'republic of Boulder'..If the rifle looked like the second one(Ruger in 5.56)...most non gun people would say, 'so what'..

 

[zukiphile]

Let's talk about the trap, and not worry about how the Air Force got $500 toilet seats.

This would go a long way toward explaining why my wife's bathroom remodel was so expensive; maybe she ordered "mil-spec".

Almost every time I talk to somebody who knows almost nothing about guns, they inevitably say something like... "I'm not totally against guns, I just don't think civilians should be able to buy "military grade" weapons of war".

Public-policy conversation is often rich in clichés and memes. Sometimes it takes a couple of questions to find what people actually mean. I do not believe that gun-control enthusiasm is actually directed at “weapons of war”. A friend let me shoot his 1917 Enfield and Garand, both very nice rifles and both “weapons of war”. Yet, neither is particularly hackles raising. Prohibitionist enthusiasm seems more animated by bayonet lugs and “shoulder things that go up”.

“Mil-spec” seems somewhat like the term “clip”. People will use the term in a way that is not accurate, but that can reasonably convey meaning. Yes, the thing you insert in the magazine well that contains your cartridges is not really a “clip”. Also, the sort of awful trigger and hammer that is the default for inexpensive commercial ARs is not really “mil spec” or “G.I.”, but in the world of ARs that designation does not so much mean “military specification” or military “general issue”, but means that it is not one of the many thousands of aftermarket parts that depart substantially from the original style.

A 40 round Magpul “clip” isn’t “mil spec”, but that does not seem to have made uncomfortable people any more comfortable.


It's hard to know if misuse of a term is innocent or cynical without a little discussion.

 

[rickyrick]

Doesn’t help when there’s an open carry rally and the participants show up dressed like two-bit mercenaries. Or when “patriots” show up to “help” dressed the same way.

Then we put skulls and scary spiders on our guns, crenellated muzzle brakes, this tactical doo-dad or the other. Someone is buying, using and wearing all the tactical crud... so the gun community has not helped their own image either.

 

[Skans]

They are counting on the fact that AR-15s superficially look like M16s or M4s, so they're telling John and Suzie that our "modern sporting rifles" (hah!) are "military grade" weaponry.

It's the new "assault weapon," folks, that's all it is.

I know this and do not disagree with your observation. The left is good at waging a propaganda war with semantics and new phrases to try and scare non-gun folks. However, rather than falling into their "trap" of trying to proclaim such weapons are not "military grade" or not "assault weapons", I like to embrace such terms, just like African Americans learned to embrace the "N"-Word and Homosexuals embraced the word "Gay".

 

[M88]

However, rather than falling into their "trap" of trying to proclaim such weapons are not "military grade" or not "assault weapons", I like to embrace such terms, just like African Americans learned to embrace the "N"-Word and Homosexuals embraced the word "Gay".

OK, how would one DO that? What would be your approach the next time Suzy soccer mom tells you she doesn't approve of civilians having "weapons of war"? I'm honestly curious how that convo would go from your perspective.

 

[rickyrick]

I just tell people that gun ownership is a right because they are dangerous.

Arms and the bearing of them would useless if they are soft and fluffy.


I don’t own weapons because they are fun and recreational, even though that’s a side benefit.

 

[M88]

..If the rifle looked like the second one(Ruger in 5.56)...most non gun people would say, 'so what'.

I have actually found THIS to be, so far, the most effective way to make my point when discussing the "assault weapon" issue with people that just have no clue. I pull out my phone, show them a pic of a hunting rifle, then show them the exact same rifle but black, full of tactical "stuff" that looks VERY scary to them, and explain that it's the same rifle inside, but dressed up differently. Sometimes they get it, but the scary rifle usually still turns them off. But when I use the VW Beetle turned into a Bradly GT sports car analogy, they at least get the point without being so "turned off". Below is the VW Bettle, and below that the SAME CAR, but with a Bradly GT fiberglass sports car body kit attached to the beetle "frame". (Beetles didn't really have a frame like most cars of that era).

 

[Skans]

OK, how would one DO that? What would be your approach the next time Suzy soccer mom tells you she doesn't approve of civilians having "weapons of war"? I'm honestly curious how that convo would go from your perspective.

There really is no one answer to this as it would depend on exactly what was said and who said it. Let's say for example someone I know says that she doesn't approve of civilians having "weapons of war", perhaps over a lunch or dinner conversation. I would probably ask "why not" to get a better understanding of where that person was coming from before blurting out a scripted reply. Let's say Suzy simply says "because they are evil, and people who have them commit evil with them" (I've actually had someone say something like that to me).

My response would go something like this: "I have a couple of AR-15's and even a semi-auto AK. I've owned them for over 20 years. I don't think I'm evil and I've certainly never committed any evil with them. In fact, I know dozens of people who own AR's, all of whom are quite peaceful and law abiding. Did you know that the AR-15 is one of the most common types of rifles owned by Americans?"

Suzy: "Well, you aren't evil and this is just a hobby of yours, but the XYZ shooter who killed innocent kids sure was evil".

Skans: "The XYZ shooter was evil - you and I 100% agree on that. But, the AR is just a rifle; one that has been available to civilians since the 1960's. Also, Firearms are more than just a hobby for me. I truly believe in the 2nd Amendment and that civilians have the same rights as people serving in the military to have access to the same types of firearms. I would be far more concerned about a government that furnishes its military and police with weapons of war, but prohibits its citizens from having any access to similar firearms.

Suzy: "Well the government already prohibits people from having machine guns, so they should prohibit AR-15's too."

I think you see where I'm going with this. The reason I don't shy away from the term "Weapons of War" or "Assault Weapons" is because that is exactly the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment guaranteed to the people, and for very good reason. Reasons which can be shown by a multitude of examples to be valid in the 20th and 21st centuries. But, what I do want from Suzy, before I address one of her talking points, is to know more about her position so that I can tailor my response to it. Then I want to hear more from Suzy.

Suzy may be stubborn and simply say "Well, I think AR's need to be eliminated so that we don't have shootings like XYZ..." I may decide to continue the conversation or stop there with a simple "We can agree to disagree; I understand that you are concerned about the occasional one-off crazy shooter. I am far more concerned about a violent government or group determined to massacre its own citizens. The ability to systematically murder millions will always be a far far greater concern to me."

At least I've planted the seed with Suzy and got her to think about the true evil to the flip side of government officials having all of the weapons of war with a perpetually vulnerable disarmed citizenry.

 

[rickyrick]

I still think that the days of semiautomatic weapon ownership in the US are numbered. How long before it ends, I can’t predict. But this is the what growing numbers the citizens of the US want. I see radical extremist politicians winning elections, it’s only a matter of time before enough people are in position to ban them.

 

[M88]

At least I've planted the seed with Suzy and got her to think about the true evil to the flip side of government officials having all of the weapons of war with a perpetually vulnerable disarmed citizenry.

Often the person I'm having discussions like this with are family I don't see often or friends I've known for years, although not close friends, as they already know I have guns and how I feel about them. Although has happened, rarely is it somebody I just met somewhere that I don't know and don't already have some sort of relationship with. Thus, things are usually pretty civil, and the "agree to disagree" deal is often how things end. But I always at least try and as you say, plant the seed. If the person knows me enough and respects me, they will at least usually listen to my point and that seed does get planted. Obviously, they key is not to ram anything down anybodies throat or insinuate that they are idiots because they don't know the facts. A calm counterpoint, or something they can easily understand like showing them a pic of a VW bug and then the Bradly "sports car" lookalike, causes them to stop and think more than anything you say.

... I don't shy away from the term "Weapons of War" or "Assault Weapons"...

Back to my original post... this point has made me think some more about how I will frame my counterpoint when confronted with obvious (to me) incorrect information.

 

[M88]

I still think that the days of semiautomatic weapon ownership in the US are numbered.

As I've said before, I'm a glass half FULL person, but on this I unfortunately agree. As the population of the US continues to shift urban, which tends to produce gun-unfriendly votes proportionally more than rural areas, and as hunting at least appears to be declining (although don't know that for sure), there will be more politicians trying to ban semi-auto weapons. Eventually, stuff will start to stick. I hope I'm wrong. Enlighten me if I am.

 

[kilotanker22]

I remember reading a comment earlier that said something like Mil spec means "Lowest bidder" However true that may be. Monetary costs are not the only considerations.

When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2007. I wasn't issued a beat up run down no name M4-A3. I was issued a Colt. Brand new one at that. With a Trijicon Acog. Now your mileage may vary, but I know of hundreds of AR style rifles and optics that are far less expensive than that setup.

I know that that is off of the intended topic of the thread, but I wanted to add this.

On the topic of the thread. Most people with a halfway decent head on their shoulders either do know the difference. Or they are competent enough to want to know why they are wrong, when the topic is introduced. You can not fault someone for ignorance. And you can't trust someone who knows and doesn't care.

 

[rickyrick]

Milspec is a minimum standard that is unique to each piece of equipment and must be met.

Milspec is not the highest standard, many civilian rifles far exceed milspec.

Military grade is basically just slang. Military ammunition pretty much sucks as compared to what civilians have access to.

 

[T. O'Heir]

"...don't think civilians should be able to buy "military grade" weapons of war"..." So no Brown Bess muskets? No M1903's or other bolt action battle rifles? No lever actions either? The issue is that the people you're talking to have no idea what they're talking about. They think "military grade" is a 20th Century thing.
“Mil-spec” is primarily a marketing buzz word. Like M88 says, everything the military uses from paper clips to missiles has a 'spec'. That can go right down to the brand name for some of it. The CF says 'pers docs' must be contained in the file folder by means of an "Acco fastener"(https://www.staples.ca/en/acco-prong-fastener-bases-100-pack-70023/product_709023_1-CA_1_20001). Acco is brand name just like Kleenex. Witnessed a huge argument over it long ago.
AR-15s only look like M16s. Nothing similar about 'em internally. And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

 

[zukiphile]

And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

Perhaps you meant the current commercial AR. At least some M-16s should qualify as assault rifles.

assault rifle noun
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

 

[rickyrick]

The AR15 in its standard form is an assault weapon as defined by many laws across the country now.

Many antigun politicians have dropped trying the assault weapon term and are just going after all semiautomatic weapons

 

[lordvader]

What also irks me is when politicians think that AR stands for assault rifle. Shows how stupid they are. What it stands for is ArmaLite Rifle-15. A rifle that was developed by the ArmaLite company and the patent sold to Colt. A true assault rifle is one that fires fully automatic. And that requires a Class III license for a civilian to own. Conservative politicians are typically pretty intelligent, but liberal politicians are just plain stupid when it comes to their knowledge on firearms.

 

[Skans]

AR-15s only look like M16s. Nothing similar about 'em internally.

You've got to be kidding! An AR-15 shares a lot in common with an M16; a heck of a lot more than a semi-auto "tommy gun" does with a full auto M1928. All but one M-16 part will easily drop right into an AR-15. The AR lower receiver is about 95% identical to the lower receiver of an M16

And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

I always tell people that if they want to be technical about the definition of "assault rifle", there is only one and it is the Sturmgewehr MP44, a/k/a "storm rifle".

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Conservative politicians are typically pretty intelligent, but liberal politicians are just plain stupid when it comes to their knowledge on firearms.

They are smart enough to use words to confuse the general public. Notice that in just a few posts above yours we can find the terms "assault rifle" (which has a standard definition), and "assault weapon" (which is a created term that once had a common definition established by the 1994 AWB but which now has multiple definitions, depending on which state you ask). They are smart enough to know that the general public doesn't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon," so they can use the latter term and be certain that many of their constituents will be absolutely certain they're talking about the former.

 

[rickyrick]

Most of our leaders no matter the party affiliation or political beliefs really don’t want us to have weapons. The only difference is some can get a bunch of free votes by simply saying that they are for gun rights and some garner votes by saying that they support gun control.

I simply don’t trust any of them, they’ve all said things that are untrue about topics in which I have knowledge or experience; therefore I can only assume that they are being dishonest about things in which I am ignorant.