I can't believe we're still talking about this.

We distinguish between AKMs and Type 56s and Beretta 92s and PT-92s. Why is this one of the subjects where using the right terminology doesn't matter? :confused:

A Type 56 isn't an AKM.
A PT-92 isn't a Beretta 92.
A Marine isn't a Soldier.

I don't think he means on the site, I think he means in general.

Well regular people mostly either don't care or not educated enough to tell the difference between someone in the US Army and someone in the US Marine Corp.

A Marine isn't going to mistake himself by identifying as a "soldier". He'll say he's a Marine.

We go to weapons, we call all AKs "AK47" even though most we see on shows and movies aren't. Or we just call them AK as an umbrella term.

A Type 56 is a type of AK-47
A PT-92 is a type of Beretta 92
A Marine is a type of soldier

Hence a Marine is a soldier.

Bam! /Thread closed

I believe the general issue with it is the unique nature of the USMC as an all-aspect combat unit. A US Marine could potentially have a job described as soldier, airman or sailor, and it sits a lot less naturally calling a sailor a type of soldier since the traditional definition of soldier emphasises land-based combat.

Ultimately it's just an inter-service pride thing (same as the various SF units who insist they're "operators" rather than soldiers, I guess), but there is a reasonly sensible case for doing it in terms of what the USMC actually does.

Okay, when you get into machines the line is completely different. Type 56s and Chinese AKs are easily an offshoot of AK-47s, same battery of arms, the parts are more or less interchangeable, and they come from com-block nations that were in bed with one another. Yes, there are nuances but the parts and action, the essentials if you will, are the same. They're related.

PT-92s and Beretta 92s, however similar they are in appearance and granted that the Brazilian guns were allegedly built with Beretta machines and tools, are not the same nor is the PT-92 a type of Beretta. They each have a different battery of arms, the parts are not interchangeable and when you couple that with their other differences from the Beretta 92, the PT-92s are not the same as Berettas nor are they a "type" of Beretta, they are a gun that's similar but all it's own. If we really get into the semantics of your counterargument then we have to delve into how many guns are actually 1911s or Glocks since those are two of the most prolific pistol designs ever, even though in reality they are just two guns.

Just the same, a Marine in general terms does the same duty as a soldier in the Army, boots on the ground, and given the super complex nuances that come with each branch, it's reasonable to assume that people would use the terms interchangeably unless they were educated enough to see a distinction, and that includes one beyond rhetoric which is what some of you are pitching. Just saiyan.

But you're using "AK-47" as an umbrella term, whereas I was referring to the actual, specific Soviet-made rifle. So no, a Type 56 isn't an AK-47 in this case.

YNH explained this better than I did, so I'll move on.

Another word you're using as an Umbrella term when it's not used as such in the US military. Like calling SEALs, "Special Forces", when Special Forces is a specific unit with unique mission perimeters that the SEALs don't share.

Or maybe we can just extend them the common courtesy of calling them what they want to be called. For what the USMC has done for this nation, I think they've earned it.

I was just playing Devil's Advocate but yeah lets just close this thread. This is just retarded.