Ocala.com Bloggers
- Broken News
- Bill Thompson
- Digital Editor
- Eric Barnes
- Frame 37
- Ocala.com Multimedia
- Marion Politics
- Newsroom
- Observations
- Naseem S. Miller
- OcalaDay
- Joe Byrnes
- Read My E-Mail
- Allen Parson
- Running Wide Open
- Joe Vanhoose
- Speaking of Business...
- Dr. Philip R. Geist
- The Bowling Blog
- Debbie Whitten
- The Green Zone
- Dave Rhea
- The Sports Blog
- Gregory Broome
- What is that?
- Newsroom
 |
Search Blogs
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Blog Archives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When is a gun not a gun?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Sly Comments |
 |
| Posted by: Emory Schley |
4/13/2007 5:50 AM |
Every now and then, I find myself wondering about stuff. Thinking too deeply on various matters has always proven to be somewhat of a problem for me. Sometimes, I’ve been told, it’s best to just not look too closely at some propositions, or practices, or traditions, or whatever. That’s probably truer in certain governmental circles than in life in general.
In Army basic training, for example, our sergeants tried to drill into our heads the fact that a rifle is NOT a gun, even though most dictionaries define a gun as a metal tube with various mechanisms attached thereto and from which a projectile is propelled, usually by the explosive reaction of gun powder.
That definition always seemed broad enough to me to include ALL firearms, whether the barrels were smooth-bored or rifled.
During question and answer periods, I always came back to the technical distinctions between the two. I was just hung up on how it was possible for a rifle NOT to be a gun, when the rifle plainly fired bullets from a metal tube. It quickly became evident that the cadre weren’t exactly clear on the differences either, but were committed to following the “official” Army stance.
“But, Sergeant,” I remember saying one day during a class, “how can a rifle NOT be a ‘gun,’ if the definition of a gun is a metal tube that spouts bullets propelled by gunpowder?”
And his answer would invariably be something like, “A gun has a smooth bore and a rifle has a rifled bore, little grooves that spiral around inside the barrel which impart a spinning action to a bullet.”
“But,” I would protest, “a rifle and a smooth-bore both fire projectiles from a metal tube, so they should both be classified as guns. Perhaps a rifle is just a special type of gun, but still a gun in its most basic sense.”
“No, you’re wrong, Troop,” was the standard reply, despite the illogic of the position he was maintaining.
You couldn’t push these guys too far during basic training lest you wind up cleaning out the grease pits behind the Mess Hall someday for insubordination, but still I sought a logical answer to this conundrum.
As basic training continued through the weeks, no matter how many times I asked about the technical differences between the two, the answer was always the same. I was wrong, and that was the end of the matter.
Then one day, during a class, a platoon sergeant was demonstrating to us a .50-caliber machine gun. We looked it over carefully, then listened as the sergeant droned on about ammunition, rate of fire, suitable targets, and precautions to take while manning such a weapon.
The “action,” that part of the weapon that accommodated the ammunition, was held open with a wooden block which prevented ammunition from feeding into the weapon. The barrel was also plugged with a cork or some type of stopper, not that such a puny structure would represent much of an impediment to a .50 caliber round, but I guess from a psychological aspect, it at least made it look safer. As the sergeant worked his way around the weapon, he repeatedly referred to it as a “machine-gun.” As he worked his way up to the muzzle, he pulled the stopper from the muzzle and we could clealy see the grooves inside the barrel.
I raised my hand, and when recognized, asked, “Sergeant, how can this be a machine-GUN when we can clearly see rifling in the barrel? Shouldn’t we be calling this a machine RIFLE instead?”
The Sergeant got an exasperated look on his face, removed his cap, rubbed his eyes with his free hand and slowly shook his head. I think I saw a bit of a tear roll down his cheek, although it could have been perspiration because it was a pretty hot day.
He slowly put his cap back on after a moment, heaved a huge sigh, and continued his spiel about the machine-gun, without ever acknowledging my question, or even commenting on it. But there was a very tired look in his eyes. I could tell he was thinking about what a long day it was going to be.
Like I said, sometimes it’s probably best not to look at things too deeply. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
|
|
|
|