Neo Hoplophobia

So MBtGE sends me a blog idea. As follows:

I was talking guns today with some of the guys at work and heard the term that describes you perfectly: "Neo Hoplophobia"

"Shooters that don't like any gun designed in the last 50 years." They were talking about Chuck Heston but it might as well be you. They described fear of owning, "Scary black guns" and clinging to old designs even when stats are clearly in favor of modern rigs (rifle, handgun and shotguns). (even K-Bars were mentioned!) I wish you had been there!!

Hoplophobia (fear of firearms) is one of Jeff Cooper's favorite terms. Do you have "Neo Hoplophobia"?

I am offended. How dare they. Is there an implication that I am AFRAID of ARs? I'm not afraid of them. I just hate them. An all-consuming hatred that fires the blackest depths of my soul. It's a monstrosity foisted upon the US by Robert MacNamara, the architect of a FAILED Viet Nam policy, and a man that unmercifully ravished Japanese population centers from the Air, General Curtis LeMay, USAF. Notice, AIR FORCE. He was not a Marine or a Soldier, but a flyboy. I'd trust a recommendation from General Patton or Abrahms, or a proper dog-face like Audey Murphy or demi-god devil-dog like Carlos Hathcock. People that USED rifles and riflemen in the war. If I wanted to know about car manufacturing or strategic bombers I'd ask MacNamara or LeMay.

And Michael Williamson (hat tip, Say Uncle) talks about how useless a rifle the AR-15 is, to back me up. Here is the money quote:

But you have to admit, if the AR-15 was really successful, you'd be able to get it from 40 different manufacturers, in .22, .222, .223, .224, .243, 7.62X39, .308 and .338 Lapua (in variants) 9mm, .40, .45, .50 BMG, several wildcat chamberings, as a pistol, carbine or rifle, clip fed, box fed, drum fed or belt fed, with barrels from 7" to 24", with dozens of sling combinations, fixed or folding stocks in a dozen lengths, with accessories like scopes, HUD sights, grenade launchers, bi pods, rail mounts, alternate bolt and trigger groups. It would win hundreds of competitions, be used by dozens of militaries and elite units, SWAT teams and commando units, be available as cheap as $450, have hundreds of smiths specializing in working on it and be readily available at any gun store.

See? There you go. Wait a minnit...

In all seriousness, I like the older styles for a variety of reasons. Romanticly, I am a lover of history, and the Garand oozes history. I appreciate the fine workmanship in designs that came before the impersonal CNC machine, and each part had more of a human touch to it, and come from an age when we were a country of mechanics. Walnut is my favorite wood of all time for fine furniture, and rifle stocks. The 1911 and Garand has killed more Nazis, Tojos, and Commies than any other US rifle/pistol combination, combined. The M-14 made a bit of a comeback in Iraq because of the utility of the heavier round. In a TEOTWAWKI situation and I have to use a rifle, I will probably not be in an organized, disciplined squad, with modern battle doctrine of fire and manuever. I won't be trying to lay down volumes of fire to pin down the enemy so another fire team can move and turn a flank on the bad guys... I may even be alone, I will have to make every round count, and not shoot to make noise, so I will have to husband my ammo supply. Some people say that .223 sometimes won't put a bad guy down, and that it just wounds. I don't know about that. I do know that NO ONE says that guys that get hit with a .308 tend to have a lot of fight left in them. Yes they are heavy, the rifle and the ammo. But if I went for a lighter weight round, I'd have the problems of smaller bullets.

The M-14 was a short lived service rifle, I think mainly because doctrine demanded more automatic fire, and that gun was no replacement for a more dedicated machine gun. But as a RIFLE it was good. Even great. And doctrine is sorta returning to semi-automatic rifle fire combined with dedicated machine gun fire. A .223 round makes more sense with automatic fire. If I get a machine gun, I'd consider one in that caliber, yes. But for a rifle I want a rifle. Not a carbine. And a carbine that currently poops where it eats.

I know a bolt action rifle like a WWI Springfield is even more Ooozier, history-wise, but I like the semi-auto because of my left handedness. So there is a concession, there.

But it's just what I prefer. Some guys prefer the AR types, for a variety of valid reasons. More power to 'em. I freely admit that there are negatives to my preference, and guys that are honest with themselves and love the AR freely admit its flaws.

I think it is most interesting to note when a "user" soldier has a choice in his preferred weapon what he or she choose. The tirgger pullers that have enough pull to demand a choice, at least. I am less interested in what some procurement General or political committee selects. And enough real users still select the weapons I prefer that I don't have a single second thought about them.

AND HOW DARE THOSE GUYS BELITTLE CHUCK HESTON!