BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,140
- Reaction score
- 6,530
All the recent talk about how 'civilians" have "no need" to own "military style" show a gross ignorance of small arms history-and our history.
The idea of "military style firearms" really only dates from the 20th Century.
In 1775 the British and the Colonists were evenly matched in terms of weaponry, the British had their Brown Besses, the Colonists had a variiety of firearms-Brown Besses, Committee of Safety muskets-a Brown Bess copy, a variety of fowling pieces, all of which used the same technology-black powder, flintlock, smooth more, muzzle loading. The British were better with the bayonet, and for the first three years superior British drill and discipline usually carried the day, though the Redcoat survivors of Lexington and Concord, Battle Road-and Bunker Hill-would have something to say about the tenacity and determination of the Colonials there. What was it one British officer said after Bunker Hill-"Damn the rebels, that they would not flinch!" And the militiaman provied his own weapon-and kept it at home.
When the Pennsylvania rifles-a strictly civilian firearm-were used properly-at Saratoga, e.g. -they inflicted tremendous damage on the enemy forces.
The training of Washington's Main Army at Valley Forge under Baron Von Steuben, the arrival of Charlevilles from France made American weaponry more uniform.
In the Civil War, repeating rifles such as the Henry and the Spencer, when used properly-Buford's cavalry at Gettyburg, some of Schofield's regiments at Framklin-devastated attacking forces and gave outnumbered troops a definite advantage. After the war they were seen as too specialized, too complicated and underpowered for general use, especially on the Great Plains. And the NRA was founded by Union Army officers appalled their troops lack of shooting skills. In the Boer War, the two sides were evenly matched-M1893 Mausers vs. Lee Enfields, superior Boer Marksmanship-they used theirs for hunting-negated superior British numbers.
In World War I machine guns, heavy and light, machine rifles developed strictly for military use, made that conflict a bloodbath that put all others in the shade. But they were never intended for civilian use.
This April 19-that date sounds familiar-marks the 75th anniversary of the start of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where a trapped and cornered people
knowing they were facing extermination, fought back with only a handful of weapons against a vicious and brutal enemy that gave no quarter.
I cite them as how "military style" firearms in the hands of 'civilians" would have made a difference, and 1775 as how "military style" firearms in the hands of men who refused to bow down to tyranny DID make a difference.
The idea of "military style firearms" really only dates from the 20th Century.
In 1775 the British and the Colonists were evenly matched in terms of weaponry, the British had their Brown Besses, the Colonists had a variiety of firearms-Brown Besses, Committee of Safety muskets-a Brown Bess copy, a variety of fowling pieces, all of which used the same technology-black powder, flintlock, smooth more, muzzle loading. The British were better with the bayonet, and for the first three years superior British drill and discipline usually carried the day, though the Redcoat survivors of Lexington and Concord, Battle Road-and Bunker Hill-would have something to say about the tenacity and determination of the Colonials there. What was it one British officer said after Bunker Hill-"Damn the rebels, that they would not flinch!" And the militiaman provied his own weapon-and kept it at home.
When the Pennsylvania rifles-a strictly civilian firearm-were used properly-at Saratoga, e.g. -they inflicted tremendous damage on the enemy forces.
The training of Washington's Main Army at Valley Forge under Baron Von Steuben, the arrival of Charlevilles from France made American weaponry more uniform.
In the Civil War, repeating rifles such as the Henry and the Spencer, when used properly-Buford's cavalry at Gettyburg, some of Schofield's regiments at Framklin-devastated attacking forces and gave outnumbered troops a definite advantage. After the war they were seen as too specialized, too complicated and underpowered for general use, especially on the Great Plains. And the NRA was founded by Union Army officers appalled their troops lack of shooting skills. In the Boer War, the two sides were evenly matched-M1893 Mausers vs. Lee Enfields, superior Boer Marksmanship-they used theirs for hunting-negated superior British numbers.
In World War I machine guns, heavy and light, machine rifles developed strictly for military use, made that conflict a bloodbath that put all others in the shade. But they were never intended for civilian use.
This April 19-that date sounds familiar-marks the 75th anniversary of the start of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where a trapped and cornered people
knowing they were facing extermination, fought back with only a handful of weapons against a vicious and brutal enemy that gave no quarter.
I cite them as how "military style" firearms in the hands of 'civilians" would have made a difference, and 1775 as how "military style" firearms in the hands of men who refused to bow down to tyranny DID make a difference.
Last edited:
