from the psst-anybody-want-to-buy-a-tank-only-2-previous-owners? dept.
Fusion has learned that 184 state and local police departments have been suspended from the Pentagon's "1033 program" for missing weapons or failure to comply with other guidelines. We uncovered a pattern of missing M14 and M16 assault rifles across the country, as well as instances of missing .45-caliber pistols, shotguns and 2 cases of missing Humvee vehicles.
[Submitter's Comment: I do object to the term "assault rifle", but that's another discussion ]
The Pentagon's "1033" Program supplies former military weapons to state and local police departments across the country. For years now, some of those weapons just sort of go missing. It seems some may have been parted out, but others have disappeared from the possession of employees, been stolen from police cars or just vanished without explanation.
For example "In Hyattsville, Maryland, the police department was suspended this past April after an M-16 was stolen from an off-duty officer’s patrol car in July 2010. But the department wasn’t even aware of its suspension until Aug. 27, when ABC News called to inquire."
On the other end of the spectrum, "The sheriff of Rising Star, Texas, a town of 800 people, one police officer and no murders this decade, was indicted for selling and pawning $4 million-worth of high-value military equipment, including a machine gun. "
This is just Pentagon supplied weapons ... I wonder what else goes missing?
Other similar reporting:
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Monday September 01 2014, @03:53PM
The Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, describes an "assault rifle" [wikipedia.org] as
That is, a fairly concrete term used to describe a particular sort of rifle commonly used in militaries everywhere.
Instead, I think you're referring to the peculiar and ambiguous term, "assault weapon" which is bandied about in debates about gun control in the US. From this story [philly.com], we have the following:
[*] Adam Lanza killed 28 people including himself in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings [wikipedia.org] eight days earlier than this linked article.
(Score: 1) by jon3k on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:01AM
Personally, I object to the use of the term assault rifle because I think it's derogatory and intentionally inflammatory.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:48AM
An assault rifle is a particular type of rifle. An assault weapon is a scary thing that shoots which has scary stuff on it like a flash suppressor or black paint.
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Monday September 01 2014, @04:01PM
I can understand the knee-jerk reaction when the term gets applied to a manual bolt-action .22 rifle with injection-molded plastics to give it the superficial visual appearance of a Kalashnikov, but we're talking about the primary purpose-designed built-to-spec rifles that most recently had been used by the military to assault enemy positions in open wartime combat operations. If that term is to have any meaning -- and there's no reason it shouldn't -- these are exactly the items it perfectly describes.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday September 01 2014, @05:18PM
"primary purpose-designed built-to-spec"
Speaking of that, they're main battle rifles not assault rifles. If they were assault rifles there would be about 50 different technical changes made.
"recently had been used by the military to assault enemy positions in open wartime combat operations"
So silly string (used to find tripwires) is also an assault rifle. I donno about that. You can use a MBR in assault ops, they just don't work as well as assault guns work in assault ops.
Technically a MBR is something you issue to generic troops for generic operations. Generally pretty good long distance performance. In sustained longer term combat you don't need huge magazines. Accuracy is important, engage targets out to 500 meters maybe. MBR aren't perfect for anything but they work tolerably well at all tasks. This is pretty much a M16 or AK47
An assault rifle is a different kettle of fish. You use that to clear a building. High firing rate. Accuracy not so important because your target is likely 10 feet away. Nice short barrels (leading to short range) to make it easy to run around a building. Clear a room swap a mag, so you need large mags of small caliber. You're clearing a typical building, not fighting the entire tet offensive so field reliability isn't as big of a deal, because you're not in a field for weeks, you're clearing a building. Weight doesn't really matter, other than guard duty they're only carried in offensive ops for like 15 minutes, at which point either you've taken the position or you're dead. They really are dedicated purpose weapons. Think of the tommy gun or what the SS used in WW2. Think of something like a fully automatic shotgun that shoots pistol rounds, thats about right.
It pisses off the military wargamer and gun collector crowd because its intentionally incorrectly using the wrong technical term to describe a complicated technical device, solely for political purposes. Like if I walked around intentionally calling thru-hold ceramic disk capacitors, "surface mount resistors", just to piss people off, assuming that had any political purpose. There's probably a car analogy in here somewhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @06:08PM
So silly string (used to find tripwires) is also an assault rifle
No, by his definition, it would be an assault string. His definition being "a rifle used to assault enemy positions is an assault rifle", which is technically wrong.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Monday September 01 2014, @06:21PM
The analogy you're looking for is the difference between a muscle car and an hotrod. I'm sure there's some difference that's significant in certain contexts to aficionados, but none whatsoever to anybody else.
I have no doubt but that, were I a soldier picking a weapon to use for a mission, it'd be of literally vital importance to express the subtleties as you just have. But to us people in the public, all that we do, want, and need to know is, "big handheld gun that sprays bullets that soldiers use in war."
Put that quoted bit to somebody in a Jeopardy-style quiz, and almost everybody is going to include, "assault rifle," in the response.
If it offends you that that's the common accepted definition of the term...well, it's just like, "hacker." The common definition ain't changing, no matter whether or not you bitch and / or use your own definition in geeky IT circles.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 1) by Jesus_666 on Monday September 01 2014, @06:28PM
The general opinion seems to be, though, that the AK-47 and M16 would both be assault rifles, being select-fire rifles using intermediate powered cartridges designed for short- and medium-range engagements. Your definition of an assault rifle would be more consistent with a submachine gun (which the Thompson is) with a drum magazine attached.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Foobar Bazbot on Monday September 01 2014, @07:10PM
First: I don't know where you're from; it's quite possible you're entirely correct, because a different definition of "assault rifle" is used where you live. Even making the assumption that English is your first language, there's plenty of differences between e.g. British and U.S. English, so this could definitely be one of them.
In the US, however, the (historical and military, not politics-related) definition of an assault rifle has no direct relation to whether it's practical or optimal for assault ops. It's really simple: an assault rifle is an individual rifle with (1) select-fire capability firing (2) intermediate rounds. It's thus distinguished from a submachine gun (which fires pistol ammo) or an MBR (which fires "real" rifle ammo and is usually not select-fire). Some people will add additional qualifiers such as "must use interchangeable magazines" or "minimum effective range", but AFAICT this is only to rule out specific oddities (e.g. the M2 carbine) that fall close/within the definition without actually being part of the assault rifle concept.
While "assault rifle" may not have been the most logical choice to name this class of weapons, some term was needed as the whole world embraced the concept with more or less recalcitrance.
Basically, the observations that (1) long-range rifle fire is very seldom used, (2) overwhelming firepower from SMGs is very useful within their effective range, (3) but SMGs don't have adequate range to completely replace rifles, and (4) attempting to combine the select-fire of SMGs with a full-power battle rifle cartridge results in an uncontrollable rifle, once noticed (by all participants in WWI and WWII) and more critically accepted as reality (which took an unfortunately long time, in the US's case), drove all parties to eventually consider the same solution -- split the difference between SMGs and battle rifles, with a cartridge that is effective out to maybe 600 meters (battle rifles up to ~2km, SMGs ~100m), and recoils gently enough to be controllable at least in short bursts. Thus arose a new class of weapons, distinct from the rifles and SMGs before them, and needing a name to distinguish them.
Since the Germans made the first production assault rifle, and chose to name it as such (the SturmGewehr 44), a translation of SturmGewehr (literally, storm rifle, where storm is a synonym of assault, as in to storm a position) was the natural choice for debating the concept's merits, and eventually discussing the history of its adoption. (Again, at least in the US.)
The M16 is very much an assault rifle; the M14, despite having some select-fire versions, is still an MBR because it fires the 7.62 NATO round, a full-power rifle cartridge. (TFA says "M14 and M16 assault rifles", which is thus half-true -- to borrow another poster's car analogy, that's like saying "Mustang and Miata sports cars"...) AK-47s (which you mentioned) are also assault rifles, as the 7.62x39 is an intermediate round.
One more thing that sometimes causes confusion: there's a clear division within assault rifles between older ones (e.g. StG.44 and AK-47) firing 7-8mm bullets (frequently the same caliber as the same nation's battle rifles) with lower velocities, and the newer ones (e.g. M16, AK-74) firing 5.56mm or so bullets at higher velocities. These are two more-or-less distinct classes of intermediate cartridges (the first derived directly from full-power rifle cartridges, the latter designed independently or from existing intermediate cartridges), but both classes are intermediate cartridges, so any individual select-fire rifle chambered for either class is still an assault rifle.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday September 01 2014, @04:02PM
Frankly I find this whole trend toward militarization of local police forces, with these guys running around looking like Robocop with night vision goggles, fully automatic weapons etc, patently insane. I'm not even sure what's driving it. I doubt that there's often any need for it, and a seriously doubt they're qualified for this in most cases.
Combine that with the increase in things like "no knock" warrants (usually related to drugs...don't get me started on our failed prohibition) where it's almost a given that someone will die. Insane.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 01 2014, @05:29PM
Well, these are the weapons you use when you go to war. They have a war on drugs, and since a rather significant portion of their population uses drugs, they are at war with themselves, a civil war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @05:33PM
> I'm not even sure what's driving it.
The military-industrial complex. If the pentagon is giving equipment away to the police (and it includes things like camo fatigues, and water cateens too) then it isn't competing with them on the used market and the military has to buy more new stuff.
> a seriously doubt they're qualified for this in most cases.
Right, because training isn't something you can give away for no extra cost so that part isn't free to the police and the police who didn't have the budget for the equipment don't have budget for training either.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday September 02 2014, @05:13AM
Don't forget that a good portion of the police recruits, and even veteran LOs, are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan actions. They are trained in the use of these weapons. and trained in the control of usually antagonistic populations.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:54AM
> and trained in the control of usually antagonistic populations.
Maybe you didn't intend it as such, but in this context the word "control" sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for "indiscriminate killing".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Subsentient on Monday September 01 2014, @04:03PM
Personally, I find the idea of police possessing military-grade weapons disturbing. Quite Orwellian. To control the masses with fear I assume. Here they started painting all the police vehicles black with the admitted purpose of fear psychology.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 1) by freesword on Monday September 01 2014, @05:27PM
Police have possessed military grade automatic weapons in this country since the 1920s (Thompson SMG, and BAR).
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:00AM
> Here they started painting all the police vehicles black with the admitted purpose of fear psychology.
Here too (unless your here is the same as mine: UK). Every time I see one it makes me think of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Monday September 01 2014, @04:06PM
My best friend's brother was a Major in the Army and a gunsmith. He had a huge gun collection, but he had to destroy all the M14's he owned. It was right before he died (he had Non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and he was selling his whole collection. Cut the receivers in half. At the time he told me they were too easy to convert to fully automatic.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 01 2014, @05:31PM
Civilian M14 are a complicated story. If you own a M1A you own a (converted, "permanently") M14. Very few legal unconverted M14 are floating around in civilian hands. As a gunsmith he probably had a FFL and they're probably legal, but I'd chop up something illegal rather than get my descendents into legal trouble. Or its all a cover story.
You can buy a M14-lookalike much as you can buy a AR-15 which is just a civilian look alike of a genuine M16. Unfortunately people call the look-alikes M14s also
(Score: 1) by freesword on Monday September 01 2014, @05:38PM
The only reason he would have for destroying them would be if they were not in the NFA registry as transferable, in which case they would actually have been illegal for him to privately own. According to the ATF the receiver of an M14 is the machine gun, and always will be, even without the parts to make it fire full auto. The registry has been closed to new machineguns since 1986. After that time only dealers with certain classes of FFL could acquire non-registered machineguns as "dealer samples" for demonstration purposes. However if those had been transferable receivers, then not only did he not have to cut them, but due to the rarity of transferable M14s he literally cut up thousands of dollars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @04:11PM
This will continue for as long as the military does not bother to have a better system for counting what it does have. They overbuy everything and improperly track things. Then store it then then the 'shelf date' expires and it is sold or 'thrown out'/stolen. Their inventory system is a joke. Instead of 1 inventory system that counts things and you buy things from they have hundreds. All in the name of 'well we are special'. It is poor separation of control and data that has lead to the sorry state of our military being unable to count how many boots it owns. The military brass are nothing more than contractor admins. The contractors have little incentive to have a better system as they can game it and sell wildly overpriced merchandise to our gov. The admins have little incentive to fix it as they do not know what they dont know.
It has been a 'well known' issue for many years. But no one will talk about it as they are all deathly afraid their budget will be slashed.
They could easily grow an organic system using well known agile processes and have a kick ass 'amazon' like system in a few years. Or even jumpstart one with something like amazon or ebay or one of the many store front systems out there. They unfortunatly can not do it that way as they are continuously budgeting using poor contract/waterfall processes. It is how we end up with a billion dollar planes that none of our military groups really need.
Every few years issues like the main story pop up with some dude owning 30 rocket launchers or something that still on the books (maybe they are not sure) in the military. It all goes back to extremely poor management of our crucial resources.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @06:32PM
In all the budget wrangling over the military, you never hear about the auditing problem. Many of the military's books are so fucked up that they've been declared unfit for audit until sometime in the next presidency (a declaration that was made, if I recall correctly, under Bush, so it's not about who's in charge, but rather how unaccountable the entire structure is). The Navy is the worst of the branches at fiscal management; the Marines finally passed an audit last year. No one actually knows how much money the military actually spends, just what's budgeted (minus black funds, of course), and that and a quarter will buy you some bubble gum.
Police department books are starting to come under scrutiny in Florida, where a couple of towns (Hampton, Waldo) have had their local police departments taken over by the county amid massive financial mismanagement that abuses citizens for revenue (speed traps) and funnels money to the wrong places and runs up huge debts. The attitudes involved are best expressed by the image of "Rambo," as was nicknamed the cop in Hampton, FL, who was accustomed to catching speeders while wearing full tactical gear and armed with an "assault rifle" (when you use it for a traffic stop, it probably deserves the scary name).
Losing weapons is just another kind of mismanagement. The problem is that the testosterone jocks like Rambo don't feel accountable to the citizenry or government. The soldiers don't feel like doing paperwork for the beancounters. That kind of unprofessionalism wouldn't be tolerated in employees of the private sector (although bosses often seem to get away with it, much as officers do in the military, especially when assigned to offices working with defense contractors).
The military and the police both need a change in attitude and a reversion to older standards of professionalism and self-control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @04:15PM
Now that we are starting to get an accounting of how many the police manage to lose, I wonder how many the military loses every year?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @04:39PM
If it is another discussion, it doesn't belong here, and there's no reason for you to state it here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @04:55PM
It's post-bait.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Fnord666 on Monday September 01 2014, @04:55PM
How many HumVees come in a case?
(Score: 2, Funny) by tftp on Monday September 01 2014, @05:11PM
A standard case can hold infinitely many missing Humvees.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday September 01 2014, @05:56PM
Just want to point out here that it is not legal for a civilian to own a HMMWV. They have never been sold to civilians and probably never will. So these two trucks will stand out if anyone cares to go look for them.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday September 01 2014, @06:55PM
Not true: http://olive-drab.com/od_mvg_hmmwv_howtobuy.php [olive-drab.com]
I worked for a guy who dealt in military surplus electronics, mainly older SW stuff that hams love. A friend of his snagged two HMMWV's at that auction, low miles and in great condition. He had to install H1 doors, DOT lighting, seat belts and I think something else but he made a killing on them when he sold them off.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday September 01 2014, @10:15PM
I'm sorry, but i believe you are mistaken. I doubt he knew anyone who bought two low mileage anything unless it was a low mileage pile of scrap. Low-mileage for a HMMWV is very different than low-mileage for a car. Those trucks didn't get their mileage from easy hardball roads. They spent a lot of their lives off-road. There are some privately owned HMMWVs out there but most are rebuilt from (literally) garbage. If he bought two great condition HMMWVs then it was from someone else who already restored them. Please, do not be offended. My personal experience is just telling me that your friend is telling stories.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Monday September 01 2014, @11:17PM
I'm confused. First you say its illegal to own one, the. You say some people do own them?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday September 02 2014, @05:56AM
Sorry to confuse. It starts at the manufacturer with their decision to not sell the truck or replacement parts ( http://www.amgeneral.com/corporate/faq.php#6 [amgeneral.com] ). Most replacement parts you see on a civilian owned hmmwv came from the trash or scrap auctions. The hmmwv is not legal for a civilian to drive unless it is heavily modified. Even then it may not pass inspection to be registered. It is simply not road legal. I searched for a regulation covering the sale/auction of the trucks but couldn't find one. When i was in the army i was told that only the most worthless and unrecoverable HMMWV's were auctioned. Wish i could provide you with a link instead of a story : )
But you are right, some people do certainly own them. But not because the US Army decided to get rid of a usable truck. Because someone rebuilt the thing with a lot of time, money, and ingenuity (hopefully not stealing the parts).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:13PM
Apparently you did not read my link. Please read the bottom section of my link entitled: "The 1999 Marine Corps HMMWV Sale". Quote:
Again, there are actual military HMMVW's out there that can be purchased by a civilian. I remembered the USMC sale because it was around 98/99 that I worked for the surplus guy when he told me of the story. They sold FAST and he regretted not getting word of the auction sooner. But I am still not sure of the DOT legality. From some quick reading, it varies from state to state and you need to modify them with Windshield wipers, DOT headlights/stop/tail/turn lights and seat belts. The H1 doors with crumple zones might be a myth or a state by state requirement.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:36PM
There's enough talk out there about the late 90's USMC sale for it to be real. So i am wrong on that count. I did read your link the first time though : ) I discarded the event because it sounded like myth.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday September 02 2014, @06:03PM
No worries. I always had my anecdotal story from when I worked for that man. But I never actually confirmed it until now.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 01 2014, @06:58PM
That's not a bug, its a feature... in Mexico.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday September 01 2014, @07:48PM
"Submitter's Comment: I do object to the term "assault rifle", but that's another discussion "
Why the issue with "assualt rifle" it has a defined definition and describes a specific class/type of weapon, unlike "assault weapon" which has no definition beyond what the media/politicians want to say.
An "assault rifle" is;
"An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are currently the standard service rifles in most modern armies. Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle [wikipedia.org]
While an "assault weapon" is;
"In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon [wikipedia.org]
Fact; ownership of a true "assault rifle" is heavy controlled in the USA at the federal level, without a special permit ownership of a fully automatic weapon, of any class, is prohibited by federal law.
Fact; "assault weapons" are used in less than 2% of gun related shootings.
Fact: 80% percent of the guns, all types, are owned by Caucasions.
Fact; most of the gun related violence occurs in minority populations.
Fact; the issue with gun violence in the USA has nothing to do with the guns, the real issue is the culture of fear and violence that pervades the USA. If the USA addresses that the amount of violence will also drop.
I look forward to reading the rebuttals and corrections from other posters.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @09:54PM
Maybe because an M14 is not an assault rifle?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @08:54PM
And now all the NSA spying is impotent in finding these "lost" weapons... nice going guys.