Burn, Baby, Burn, With Your Own Flamethrower

We keep seeing vintage flamethrowers come up at auction — they’re interesting weapons, and not being firearms they’re completely unconstrained by Federal or State law, except for two non-fun-loving jurisdictions that ban them, California and Maryland. (How could the legislators of MA, NJ and NY have missed this? Well, they’re totalitarians, but nobody ever said they were competent totalitarians. They tend to be the dissipated nephews of competent totalitarians past, these days). But anyway, these vintage flamethrowers always get bid up to nosebleed territory.

So it was only a matter of time before someone created a modern civilian flamethrower, for the sheer joy of burning stuff. Somebody now has. The question is, would it come in cheaper than the vintage scourge of Iwo Jima?

Naaah… We’ll get to that later.The first question is… does it burn?

It burns.

We’re betting this shows up in an action movie next summer. Because they’ve already demonstrated the most necessary of all Hollywood weapons skills, the dual wield:

This might be just the ticket for those annoying chipmunks or ground squirrels burrowing into your lawn.

Or those damn kids who won’t get off it.

And now for the money.

The X-15 flamethrower is available at a discounted price of $1,600 (from $1750 list). It runs on gasoline, runs better on diesel, and runs best of all with a napalm-like thickening agent that they’ll gladly sell you on their very website, cleverly called throwflame.com.

Here, somewhat tongue in cheek, Jerry Miculek examines its concealed carry potential, complete with “real firearm” and “fire ant” puns.

You know, if people started using these for home defense, criminals would be showing up with some interesting mugshots.

Anybody else have, uh, a burning desire for one of these gadgets?

15 thoughts on “Burn, Baby, Burn, With Your Own Flamethrower

  1. S

    Interesting device. I wish there were more info on the ignition system, and what options are available. For instance, the ability to flood an area with fuel before igniting it. A remote mount would be most useful.

  2. targ8ter

    This sort of thing isn’t too difficult to build out of standard plumbing valves, and a plumber’s propane torch is a good pilot light. For maximum irony, an old fire extinguisher makes a great pressure tank.

  3. obsidian

    Enlisting at seventeen in the Marines I was assigned as an Anti Tank assaultman, the flame thrower was still in inventory then.
    I loved shooting ever weapon they allowed me to shoot, absolutely salivated when given the chance to fire any weapon they handed me, except…the flame thrower.
    That weapon scared the hell out of me.
    Perhaps it was the two Marines wide eyed standing beside 55 gallon barrels of water holding the wool blankets, perhaps it was the Marine standing by the large airfield type fire extinguisher, The Corpsmen and their ambulance.
    Or Maybe it was the raw smell of NaPalm and the heat along with the frightening whoosh of the flames.
    What ever it was, I never enjoyed using this thing and would not if given the chance ever use one again.
    I thank the war Gods that I never had to use one on anybody in combat.
    No, you can keep your flame thrower, please.

  4. Brad

    Oh good God Hell YES!

    The perfect weapon vs swarms or hives of nasty critters.

    Can competitors to X15 and cheaper do-it-yourself plans be far behind? Once I escape this forsaken SJW over-ran blue state, a flamethrower is on my list of want to haves.

  5. Tom Kratman

    They’re sort of missing the point, aren’t they? Flamethrowers aren’t just for pretty show or starting a fire if there’s burnable material around; they’re supposed to land a quantity of fuel at some distance, say 20 or25 meters for a backpack version, and burn up all the oxygen in the area, suffocating the entrenched and bunkered mo-fos whom you cannot get at some other way. Occasionally they’re good for spashing burning shit off one thing to toast directly some other mo-fos around corners and such. This might be useless for either.


    Still, to be fair to these guys, the M202 Flash folks never seemed to have figured out that the Flash wasn’t a valid replacement for a flamethrower unless the target had a lot of burnable shit around it. Since the target had some choice in that…

    Sigh…in 1986, IIRC, I got the entire division’s allocation for Flash for my company. Fun day. Scared to death, mind you, but still a fun day.

    1. Hognose Post author

      I just want it to deal with the ice dams that build up over my laundry room. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

      1. Tom Kratman

        You know, one of the things that can give you the willies, if you were ever in an regular organization dedicated to fighting the USSR, was that the Red Army’s flamethrower, the three tank, three shot LPO-50, didn’t use inert gas to push the fuel. Oh, no; it had small black powder charges, one in each of the three tanks, to push the fuel…

    2. Hognose Post author

      Oh, yeah, Dan King’s Iwo Jima book includes numerous appreciations of flamethrowers from the Japanese point of view. While it was a very terrifying weapon for them, it was just one aspect of an irresistible juggernaut of doom that faced them. Most of them believed they had no prospects whatsoever of living, which is one thing that enabled the suicidal Banzai! charges. If you’re going to die anyway, a blaze of glory beats suffocating in a cave like a rat.


    Am I the only one who sees a profound irony in the fact that a flamethrower, of all things, is not considered to be a “fire”arm? :-)

    1. Y.

      Only in the US.

      We envy you that. And the Rockies, and the low pop density. For everyone else, flamethrowers are in the same category as explosives.

Comments are closed.