More assault weapons (not really)

[KMAX]

This thread is not really about assault weapons, but about military styled firearms. Much of the civilian firearms technology evolved from military weapons. 30-06 hunting rifles is the first thing that comes to my mind. Do we have more military style firearms on the civilian market now than say in the 60s and 70s? What % more? Any thoughts or comments on the subject?

By military style I am not trying to start any arguement about function. I am only referring to appearance to the general populace, such as the AR or AK variants that can be bought by the typical civilian. Also, I would include surplus firearms that can be bought without special licensing requirements.

I know there are plenty of you that are much more knowledgable than me. Educate me.

 

[BlueTrain]

Juding from my old books and magazines, the only new ones were M1 carbine replicas. There were M1 rifles around already but the army (National Guard) was still using a lot of them. The AR15 was still new and scarce on the civilian market. Note here that I'm thinking early 1960s. The 60s and 70s is a 20 year time span.

Anyway, there were lots of surplus firearms available, even through the mail, but most were bolt actions, although the FN 1949 was available. It wasn't cheap, though. But they were definately all military weapons. But in 1960 (my base year), bolt action rifles were still on issue in some countries and in fact, still being manufactured in some places. After all, that was over 50 years ago.

I'm not so sure most civilian weapons evolved from military technology, though it may seem like it now. Lever actions have been used by the military here and there but not so much and they were not originally military weapons. Mostly I'd say the development has either been parallel or the same. A lot of the old bolt actions were put on the civilian market in sporting configurations as soon as there was production capability, if there actually was a market. In fact, one could sometimes say that civilian development of advanced firearms was ahead of military usage of certain features. That's not to say that military rifles were necessarily then developed from more advanced civilian sporting rifles because that rarely seems to happen, probably because of the different requirements of civilian sporting weapons and military weapons. For example, there were semi-automatic rifles on the market before WWI but no military weapons were derived from any of them, even though the civilian weapons stayed in production for 25 years.

 

[BarryLee]

While I have no real data, but when I was kid a lot of folks would hunt with military surplus rifles. They were generally some older bolt action guns many even had bayonet mounts attached. I suspect it had more to do with economics than anything else.

 

[RickB]

Armed forces generally have the most advanced weapons, and the technology, if not the weapons themselves, "trickle down" to civilians eventually.
When I was a kid, my dad owned a M1903 Springfield rifle, M1 Carbine, and M1911 pistol. In the early '60s the latter two were still in military use, and the Ought-three had only been out of service for about twenty years.
Today, my kids could own a AR rifle/carbine and a Beretta 92 that vary little from the guns currently used my the military.
It's normal for civilians to own weapons like those used by the military. In times of war, a lot of people are given their first exposure to firearms while serving, and after their service is completed, it would be natural for them to want guns with which they were familiar.
I think there's also the matter of Americans feeling a certain amount of outrage at being denied the same sort of weapons technology that our tax dollars provide for our military. That might be peculiarly American.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, maybe. Take a poll to see if the M16 is the most advanced rifle available. And read my post again.

 

[RickB]

Uncle Sam just recently rejected the idea of replacing it with the SCAR, so it's the highest-tech rifle that's in service.
By military "style" you literally mean guns never intended for the military? Since there were never many M1 Garand "style" rifles, or BAR "style" rifles made for civilian consumption, the hundreds of thousands of them in civilian hands don't count as military style because they are actual military surplus? If that's what you mean by "style" - weapons made for civilians that have the appearance of military weapons - then there is an unprecedented number of such weapons in use today. Nobody was making civilian knock-offs of the trapdoor Springfield, or Krag, or '03, or just about any other military rifle until the M14 came along, but I think that was largely due to the government generally selling surplus weapons to the public, so there was no need for "style" weapons.

 

[KMAX]

Surplus too.

Actually, by military "style" I did mean to include surplus that could generally owned by civilians without special licenses. Not full auto.

The more I think about it, my question leaves a big gray area in the middle. A Hi point carbine may look like a military rifle to some, but most of us know the military would never use one. Also, some military personnel have used rifles that many of us would consider civilian rifles (Winchester model 70 for example). I am not sure of the history of the model 70. For all i know it could have started as a military rifle.

 

[BlueTrain]

During the period when bolt-actions and lever-actions were the most common form of rifle, the same model guns, essentially, were made in both a civilian style and a military style sometimes. Some lever actions were made in a full-stocked style (there is no better word than "style") that also took a bayonet. The last to receive that treatment was the Winchester M1895 as made for the Russians. Some remained in use as late as WWII. But generally lever actions did not find favor with militaries because they mostly were chambered in weaker calibers.

That's something of a twist. These days armies are mostly equipped with rifles in weaker calibers whereas the more knowlegable civilians insist on more powerful weapons.

Bolt actions, too, came in civilian sporting configurations as well as full-stocked military versions. There were and still are full stocked sporting rifles but the style is quite different. A few, very few, military weapons have a fairly sleek, sporting look just as they come. The M1 carbine and the Lee-Enfield No. 5 come to mind. Even the Lee-Enfield was produced in a sporting configuration at the same time the issue rifles were being manufactured, though not in government operated plants. There also at one time a minor fad to produce "officer versions" of service rifles.

Once again, these days you will find civilians trying to make sporting weapons look more military or tactical.

 

[KMAX]

Great responses guys. Your info gives me ideas for internet searches on more particular subjects and that is what I was looking for here. I can always count on someone here to spark my interest in some subject. Thanks.

 

[RickB]

Also, some military personnel have used rifles that many of us would consider civilian rifles (Winchester model 70 for example). I am not sure of the history of the model 70. For all i know it could have started as a military rifle.

The Model 70 started as a civilian rifle, but has seen duty with military snipers. Remington's pre-war counterpart, the Model 30, was a civilian version of the M1917 "Enfield" that they had made in huge quantities during WWI; it goes both ways.