(In here becasue it relates to gun-control) Are there any guns that are issued to soldiers that a normal civilian can gain access to?
Plenty, depending on what state and how you define “issued to soldiers”. An AR-15 is just a civilian version of an M16. A lot of military weapons are also sold with the action modified from “full auto” to “semi auto” or other modifications to make them legit.
As for whether you could buy an M-60 machingegun or Barett .50 cal “anti something 2 miles away” rifle, I think those sort of weapons are heavily regulated.
Despite the political aspects, I think this can be answered factually. Moved to GQ.
Remington 870, 9mm Beretta, Colt .45. The AR-15, as mentioned above. There are non-automatic versions of the MP5 as well. I believe that many of the US sniper rifles are just tricked-out version of civilian .380 rifles, but I could be wrong about that.
Not to mention AK varations.
The term “military grade” simply means stuff the military uses. It does not equal more powerful. For example if someone said “military grade explosive” it would sound scary. However military grade explosives are generally less powerful than civilian grade explosives. The military is willing to give up some power in order to have increased stability. That’s because it is assumed they will be used in less than ideal and dangerous conditions.
I don’t know if they have Remington 870s in the inventory. My unit has Mossberg 500s. But still not any more powerful than a normal deer hunting shotgun.
I may have dated myself 
In many cases military rifles are full auto or burst-fire (such as 3 shots at a time for each trigger pull.) Those sort of rifles are not ownable by a civilian without going through government Class 3 paperwork and fees.
From what I’ve seen basically any semi-automatic (pull the trigger, one shot) firearm that fires conventional .50 caliber ammunition or under would be legal for civilians to own.
In most states you can legally own fully automatic weapons as well as things like .50 BMG sniper rifles, e.g. the Barrett M82. The full auto stuff requires a tax stamp from the BATFE which costs $200, requires a background investigation and the approval of the local sheriff. The Barrett is just a rifle for legal purposes. For calibers > .50, the rifle would require the same stamp as it would be considered a destructive device. Be prepared to pony up serious cache for these big boy toys. A former co-worker was looking into purchasing an M82 and said he expected it to cost around $15k when all was said and done. A really cheap transferable machine gun (fully automatic weapons made before 1986 which must be U.S. made if manufactured between 1968 and 1986) will set you back at least a grand, not including the transfer tax. You could, if you could find some for sale, purchase a hand grenade legally. Each one would be subject to the same $200 destructive device transfer tax. I have never seen a hand grenade for sale.
Years ago, I was at a gun show and on offer was a working Soviet-issue flame thrower. 50 of them had been purchased to burn off patches of unburnt oil after Saddam blew up the oil wells in the Gulf War. Since they don’t shoot a projectile, they weren’t considered firearms. The sellers noted that you basically could never shoot it, but it would make an interesting conversation piece. They were asking $500.
FWIW,
Rob
And a lot of them that the military uses are literally impossible to get, as they were made post-1986. Like M4 carbine.
I don’t think there are any national caliber restrictions. You rarely see bigger than .50 BMG, but that’s due to the market, and they do have them, like .600 or .700 Nitro Express. You wouldn’t encounter them unless you hunt Cape Buffalo or something. Also, I don’t know if they even make semi-auto versions.
ETA: >.50 is still legal afaik, but a) more hoops to go through, and b) some states ban >=.50
No, you can easily get an M4. You can purchase a complete pre-1986 M16 lower and just put a brand new 14.5" upper on it. Then go ahead an replace the buttstock and everything else with brand new parts, just keeping the old lower receiver. Instant M4.
Or, just buy any AR-15 that wasn’t made between 1994 and 2004 (So that it doesn’t have a sear block). Then buy a pre-1986 registered auto sear. Install the sear and a 14.5" upper and again you have a new M4. The sear is the “machingun”. So you can put it in any AR-15 style weapon you like provided it doesn’t have a sear block.
Plenty of M4s available for civilian purchase.
Don’t you need to drill the receiver to accept the auto-sear? As I understand it, that is a prohibited act.
Rob
We just got them a little while ago. We used to have model 1897 trench guns. It’s the National Guard, getting new stuff takes some getting used to.
A regular sear, yes. A drop in auto sear, no. They look like this: http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html
They are classified individually as machineguns all by themselves. They have serial numbers and require the same paperwork as purchasing a complete machinegun.
I believe that most, if not all sidearms used by the military can be purchased by civilians. The US Army used the Colt 1911 semiauto handgun from WW1 all the way to Desert Storm, and you can buy a new or used 1911 today. I’m not aware of any significant differences between versions manufactured for the civilian market and guns made directly for government contracts.
The Wikipedia page about sniper rifles says the same thing. Civilian sniper rifles are more accurate but less rugged.
Would the NRA flip out if the government mandated that guns were unmodifiable?
Define “flip out,” but they would almost certainly not like it. I can’t see what purpose it would serve.
It isn’t illegal, but actually can be a crime if you modify some foreign rifles (e.g. SKS) the wrong way. See: 922(r). Basically, you have to either leave it complete, or replace several certain parts with US made parts. It’s one of those laws that accomplishes nothing except to create hassle.
If you plan on modding, please note that’s the first website I pulled up, and you should look more to stay in compliance. I also can’t vouch for their font choice.
Any answer would just be speculation, but personally I would guess that since the law would be largely unenforceable and (in most cases) arbitrary, I doubt that the courts would let it stand if it was actually passed. Since that’s a pretty easy win, I’d have to imagine that the NRA would be pretty excited by the prospect of a slam dunk in getting the law shot down.
What is a “modification”? How about having to replace a screw? Or mounting a telescopic sight?
But anyway, who cares?