top of page

Militia Equipment Considerations: Arms & Ammunition


Covered in this category thus far has been 1) layers of attire for operating in cold weather, 2) basic gear for bivouacking, and 3) means of carrying those extended loads. All of the above can apply to anyone in reacting to most conceivable scenarios, including those too young and/or infirm for other duties. Now, it has come time to add what puts the "milit-" in militia. Any already looking into the fulfillment of this duty will have already gained some familiarity with choices in this domain...after all, that is the whole point. For most of us this will not be about "bugging out" and retreating to a rural redoubt to save what we can for ourselves: it will be about braving the chaos to save what we can for our community, state & nation. Never lose sight of the fact that the militia is a patriotic role, not a self-serving one.


Today, as throughout history, the militiaman is expected to furnish his own arms. In fact, it was often the case that laws would require all able-bodied men-of-age to have a particular kind of weapon, maintain it, keep a ready supply of ammunition, and be ready to deploy with it at sudden notice (the Swiss still have something like this, and the Israelis have gained new appreciation for the practice since 10/7). The loss of official militia recognition in the United States leaves citizens on their own covering the costs, but that happens to be no different from the 18th century Patriot tradition and gun culture of early America.


There is one major advantage the citizen militiaman has: nominally-free of the constraints of a logistical supply chain that must necessarily standardize, he may choose whatever equipment he prefers. There is only one mitigating consideration: accessibility within one's budget. This has already been discussed in previous posts, in that surplus US military gear is generally preferred for its balance of cost-effectiveness and quality (cheaper will not hold up; better will cost you).


The same applies to arms and ammunition, to a certain degree. The possibility always exists that militia may interoperate with the military, police, or other militia, so some standardization is not a bad thing so long as it does not sacrifice effectiveness. Semi-automatic service-type rifles, in particular, need means of carrying additional magazines, so choice of weapon will directly influence the build of a fighting load. As indicated in Light Foot Militia Standards, those who opt for more exotic calibers will assume much of the burden of supplying that ammunition themselves.


But I am not here to try boxing-in anyone. Actual militia units have often standardized on this particular category for the obvious logistical reasons, but I am presently not a member of any such unit and, in any case, I appreciate that most of us must ultimately be prepared to operate as a militia-of-one. With that in mind, the rest of today's post will focus on different "classes" of calibers while weighing their relative positives and negatives for the sake of making informed decisions.


Light Rifle

Key Examples: 5.56x45mm NATO (a.k.a. .223 Remington), 5.45x39mm Soviet


This category is always going to have its detractors (calling it "varmint" among less classy terms) due to the tinier bullet and that it was invented specifically to fulfill a military logistical doctrine. Yet there is no denying that opting for this will, at the very least, enable more comfortably carry of the greatest number of rounds per fighting load. It certainly does not hurt that, due to this category having been adopted as official standard among the militaries (and much of the police forces) of both the First and Third Worlds, that accessibility and interoperability issues are as close to nonexistent as it can get.


Nevertheless, the smaller round does necessitate considerations that are not an issue with other types of ammo. Retaining a military level of "killing power" required special bullet designs to produce a terminal impact beyond what would otherwise be expected of such a small full-metal jacket (i.e. fragmentation of the NATO round, extreme yawing of the Soviet, referring to the above examples); these properties may not translate to other such calibers on the market. As such, if opting for this category only the military rounds should be considered for militia duty as civilian calibers would be designed for target shooting or small game hunting only.


These killing properties also tend to be contingent on sufficient terminal velocity. While bullet designs exist that override this somewhat, they are among the least accessible since they are special operations or competition rounds that are more expensive and less practical for general use. Add on the fact that these lighter rounds are more subject to the whims of environmental physics at distance, this category is really only suitable for shorter-range engagements. However, that so happens to cover the vast majority of potential scenarios for both the military and militia, so it is not that much of a drawback.


There are a variety of subtypes of the 5.56 NATO round, not even counting some unique foreign loads. I advise ample research before making any bulk purchase; AR15.com's Ammo Oracle was where I got my own started and I still recommend it for how detailed it goes (even if some information may be dated). I used this information, among many other sources, to opt for a full retro-style M16 build (20-inch barrel to attain that design velocity) fed with American-made M193 (barrier penetration offered by M855 is less of a consideration in the militia) rounds as my general-use shoulder arm. Positives:

+ Least-expensive service calibers available today + Widely-available as military overruns/rejects

+ Lightweight: carry more rounds in higher-capacity magazines (30 standard, more optional)

+ Standardization and popularity means wide choice of weapons that chamber these rounds

+ Standardization means this option is the most compatible for interoperability

+ Short-range terminal effect, even with FMJ, is devastating and sufficient for most encounters


Negatives:

- Terminal effect means investing in military loads, other calibers unsuitable

- Special rounds to enhance terminal effect override accessibility benefit

- Lower power: detractors' point is conceded by frequent need for multiple rounds to neutralize

- Cheap Russian-made rounds less accessible since imports banned by sanctions

- Different loads, particularly foreign, may have different characteristics (recommend American-made)

- Popularity means this is the first to inflate then disappear in a shortage


Moderate Rifle

Key Examples: 7.62x39mm Soviet, .300 AAC Blackout


Attempting to work upwards in order of general power categories next brings us to THE original assault rifle-type rounds which follow their 7.92x33mm pathfinder. Back in the day, all military rounds were FMJ that shot through-and-through, and by WWII standards both 7.92 Kurz and 7.62 Soviet were devastating (despite their reduced power) because it was a greater number of the same diameter holes punched in a target in a shorter span of time. This operating concept acclimated so well that, by and large, this is the type of service round still preferred by much of the former Second World (and their Third World clients).


Nevertheless, the Small-Caliber High-Velocity concept that birthed 5.56 NATO won out on the military side of the equation, prompting rivals Russia and China to retire from this class (at least as full service-wide standard) in favor of the Light Rifle category above. And yet, accounting for the world in general, this may still be the most popular overall. While that may have more to due with the ubiquity of the SKS and AK platforms that chamber them, it drives this being a strong secondary choice for militia use even in America.


Unlike the previous category, it is difficult to go wrong with any choice that creates wounds this large. It is true that medical science has come along since its heyday (US troops in Vietnam were more likely to survive being hit by an AK than Vietnamese hit by an M16), but even these lighter (relative to full-size battle rifle rounds) bullets will travel far faster than any equivalent from a pistol or submachine gun thus producing enhanced terminal effects even with through-and-through FMJ hits. Add on the fact that the standard magazine capacity is 30 rounds (AK example) and this really is a super submachinegun choice.


Yet that only really applies if used as such, or in other words: there is reason 7.62x39 owns this category, and that ties into why it is mostly associated with the AK-47 family. The SKS line, or its American-made equivalent Ruger Mini-30, may offer superior velocity and precision due to key design differences, but not by enough to make a positive impact for militia service and nor to overcome their lower-capacity magazines making them as quaint as the M1 carbine. True enough, they are proven and will get the job done (thus are not invalid choices), but neither can they be viewed absent the fact that better, more cost-effective choices exist.


Positives:

+ [Regarding 7.62x39] Ubiquitous foreign loadings available on the cheap, best budget option

+ [Regarding .300 Blackout] Wide range of loadings available for diverse applications including silenced

+ Platforms chambering these rounds have earned reputation as most reliable in the world + Objectively powerful even absent special terminal effects

+ Foreign-made weapons still frequently available for lower cost Negatives:

- Cheap Russian-made rounds less accessible since imports banned by sanctions

- American-made rounds lose accessibility advantage due to much higher cost

- Cheap foreign rounds run dirty and are often a poor choice for higher-grade weapons

- Heavier per round (hence why militaries switched to lighter rounds)

- Slower than their full-power peers, yielding measurably weaker terminal effects


Intermediate Rifle

Key Examples: 6.8x43mm Remington SPC, 6.5x39mm Grendel


This was supposed to be a new category for the military, getting close many times for a longer time than many are aware. The US M1 Garand was originally going to be chambered in .276 Pederson before that was overridden by General MacArthur; the new NATO standard rifle was originally going to use the .280 British round before that was overridden by the Americans. Then once again, the 21st century War on Terror highlighting shortcomings of standard 5.56x45mm NATO (then M855, all European allies having transitioned to some variant of the Belgian SS109) prompted a plethora of new developments (some official, many wildcat) meant to address this service rifle power deficit.


And yet the military logistical mindset saw none of them get adopted despite their best design strength being simple adaptability to existing weapon platforms. As of this writing the US Army continues to mull over their new 6.8x51mm (commercial .277 Fury) which leaves intermediate behind in favor or returning to a full-power round (and the added expense of a whole new service rifle platform). Unfortunately, due to lack of official adoption, this is the least accessible category and that makes it a weaker choice for militia.


But for those who can budget (or load their own rounds) for it, the superior killing power this class offers is not something to be dismissed. There are a great number of choices (6.5 Grendel probably being the most accessible due to less-expensive foreign loadings on the commercial market), all inherently faster and more precise than the moderate class while retaining superior power at distance than lighter service rounds. All that versatility with less of a weight disadvantage brings into contrast why this was, in theory at least, a strong contender for military use; such strengths would be pertinent to the militiaman as well. Positives:

+ Measurably powerful over light rounds, minimally heavier fighting load, superb in-between solution

+ Superior precision over moderate category

+ Superior longer-range terminal effect over light category

+ Variety of factory and wildcat loads available, enabling making of most suitable choice + Most loads able to be adapted to popular AR-15 platform with minimal parts swapping


Negatives:

- Least accessible category due to greater expense

- Different round shape generally stipulates dedicated magazines, often lower than standard capacity

- Superior positives only accessible with sufficient practice which is mitigated by higher expense

- Non-standard, nullifying potential interoperability while increasing odds of catastrophic accident

- While versatile, is most suitable for general use only as upgrade over light category


Full-Power Rifle

Key Examples: 7.62x51mm NATO (a.k.a. .308 Winchester), 7.62x54mmR (Russian rimmed)


Following WWI, all major powers had developed (some independently, some jointly with other nations) a standard round for their bolt-action service rifles shared with supporting platforms such as automatic rifles and light machine guns. Following WWII and the establishment of NATO, the First World (with the key exceptions of France and Switzerland) abandoned their previous chamberings and consolidated: all the warfighters from .30-06 Springfield to .303 British, 7.65x53mm Belgian Mauser to 6.5x55mm Swedish Mauser, were surrendered in favor of the .30-06-derived 7.62x51mm (some reluctantly, which is a story in itself). Wherever the Soviet Union now dominated they could press adoption of their aging but vaunted 7.62.54mmR (thus helping their export economy) but in Yugoslavia, China, and much of the Third World there was no immediate need to transition away from 7.92x57mm German Mauser or 7x57mm Spanish Mauser of which they were still making good use.


There are variances (depending on bias), but this paraphrase from WWI sums up a relative assessment: the Americans brought to war the best target rifle, the Germans the best hunting rifle and the British the best battle rifle. This highlights a couple key facts: full-power rifles are basically equivalent to each other and they can (and have) excel in a great variety of uses. Over the centuries militia have often doubled as warriors and subsistence hunters, Davy Crockett being one famous example.


It is no coincidence that this category is the oldest. In the days before autoloaders, marksmanship and the raw power of a single shot were key to making the service weapon effective as more than just a fancy pike in conjunction with its bayonet. Once machine guns and enhanced artillery obsoleted the set-piece rank-and-file tactics of old, individual precision and mobility rose in its place of prominence.


Although the two example calibers listed after the header are the most accessible of this category in the world today, technically it is another "cannot go wrong with any choice" so long as one can ably supply himself and practice to proficiency with the weapon. As a general service caliber these have fallen out of favor due to being much too powerful and awkward for what war has become in the last half-century, yet it never stopped being used in supporting roles and is even being considered for a resurgence (as I said in the last section about the new US Army round). In any case, this is a solid either primary or alternative choice for the militiaman because the same reasons it has delivered over decades of war still pertain. Positives:

+ Most powerful, one-shot-one-kill and can ruin any enemy's day by turning cover into concealment

+ Designed for longer range thus will retain power and precision at greater distance

+ Best for marksman role due to ranged capabilities and, in some designs, inherent accuracy

+ Present world standards plus several older military calibers still available as less-expensive surplus

+ Greatest role versatility due to being powerful enough for any of them, including game hunting

+ Weapons are generally larger, heavier, and more applicable to non-lethal deterrence


Negatives:

- Heavier rounds in lower capacities, marksmanship necessary due to reduced fighting load count

- Power is harsh, necessitating sufficient upper body strength and training to mitigate recoil

- Weapons are invariably heavier and take longer to learn to use well

- Older military calibers still factory-produced but relegated to more expensive hunting loads

- Marksmanship takes practice, no premium on training

- Too powerful for crowd scenarios since overpenetration will most definitely be a factor


Pistol

Key Examples: 9x19mm NATO, .45 ACP


In the smoothbore age pistols fired the same balls as muskets but with such inferior precision that troops were better off sticking solely to reloading their shoulder arms (or using the bayonet). That changed as the Industrial Revolution brought repeating, then autoloading, capabilities to pistols first, ushering in the era of the pistol being an ideal defensive backup that threatened to obsolete the bayonet. Then once the invention of the submachine gun gave regular old pistol rounds a whole new lease on military and police life, that continued the revolution as developers find new ways to extend the capabilities of these, at least with the two examples given above, more than century-old calibers. The law, obviously, puts a real full-auto submachinegun is out of the question, but the militiaman still has options that can conform to the same preparedness mindset as the frontiersman who carried on his belt identical rounds for his two weapons: a lever-action rifle for long-range precision, and a revolver (or two) for short-range defense. In regard to military standard-type FMJ rounds it is the same equation, and the market recognizes this in three key forms: manufacturer interoperability (Beretta Cx4 Storm), designed compatibility (numerous AR-type and various different builds made to feed from Glock magazines), or a hybrid that can interchange magazine wells (Kel-Tec Sub2000 or Ruger PC carbine). Loading defensive hollow-point rounds may result in a terminal boost as well, but research should be done first since those bullets are made for a pistol's velocity threshold and exceeding it can have undesirable results. Positives:

+ No further ammunition investment required if caliber already stocked for handgun use

+ Handguns, of course, are much smaller and handier; carbines less so but still more compact than rifles

+ FMJ rounds at carbine velocities produce greater terminal impact against soft body armor

+ JHP rounds at carbine velocities more likely to achieve ideal terminal effect + Variety of calibers in common use, mitigating effect of ammo shortages (see next point)

+ Some platforms designed to interchange calibers, increasing potential options for supply

+ High-capacity magazines designed for carbine use will function in companion handgun Negatives:

- Strictly personal-range roles; even light rifle rounds completely trump the power of any pistol round

- The choice between a rifle-caliber and pistol-caliber carbine must be weighed carefully

- Excessive carbine velocity can neutralize terminal effect of hollow-point bullets

- FMJ rounds unsuitable for crowd scenarios due to overpenetration danger

- A backup handgun and any magazines are extra fighting load weight; decide accordingly

- Common calibers can disappear in ammo shortages, uncommon calibers can be tricky in normal times

- Pistols are not precision weapons; a great deal of practice is necessary to be combat-ready with one


Conclusion


Once again: more general guidelines than any attempt to be comprehensive. I tried to narrow down the most pertinent facts, but I also think background is important for greater understanding (plus I like going on historical tangents). That being said I will by no means claim I have the best understanding, speaking under correction and ready to yield to better experts while, as always, encouraging readers to conduct their own research and come to their own conclusions.


The four Militia Equipment Consideration posts thus far have covered all the bases. It is likely that over time I will delve into greater detail on some of these matters, however the essential trifecta or survival, transport, and defense is complete. There are other potential subjects such as camouflage and uniforms (which another previous post was about) and how to configure equipment, but those are extra.


Before closing today I want to reiterate the point that the militia is neither military nor police, therefore is not obligated to plan, think, or operate like either. Sure there are several cross-compatible principles, but everyday operating mindsets could hardly be more different beyond the base purpose of remaining vigilant and ready to act at a moment's notice. Yet the application is very much the same: we serve and protect not just ourselves and our families, but our neighbors and countrymen as well.

Comments


bottom of page