Does the U.S. Still Use Flamethrowers? Military and Civilian Rules Explained
Meta Description: Does the U.S. still use flamethrowers? Learn why the military retired them, what replaced them, and how federal, state, and local laws affect civilian ownership.
Flamethrowers remain a familiar image of 20th-century warfare, but they are no longer standard weapons in the U.S. military. The Army retired its portable flamethrowers decades ago, and modern forces rely on other weapons and tactics. Civilian devices are a separate matter: federal law generally does not regulate them as firearms, but state and local restrictions can apply. The answer to “Does the U.S. still use flamethrowers?” depends on whether “use” means military service, private ownership, or a specialized industrial task.
Does the U.S. Military Still Use Flamethrowers?
No, the U.S. military does not use man-portable flamethrowers as standard weapons today. The Army phased out its military flamethrowers after the Vietnam War, with the transition completed in the late 1970s. These weapons are not part of the current standard infantry arsenal.
That does not mean the military has stopped using every weapon capable of producing fire or heat. Incendiary munitions, explosives, and other weapons may create fires or intense heat, but they are not backpack flamethrowers. The distinction matters: a flamethrower projects burning fuel in a continuous stream, while many other weapons produce heat or fire through a different mechanism.
Public information about current military inventories can change, and specialized equipment may be classified or used for limited purposes. However, there is no public indication that the U.S. military has returned portable flamethrowers to regular service.
Why Did the Military Retire Flamethrowers?
Flamethrowers were dangerous to both the person carrying them and nearby troops. Their fuel tanks added weight, and the operator had to approach relatively close to a target. The weapon’s fuel supply also made it vulnerable to damage. These drawbacks made flamethrowers difficult to use safely and effectively in changing combat conditions.
As military technology developed, weapons with greater range and more flexible effects reduced the need for a soldier to carry a tank of fuel and a flame projector. Changes in tactics and equipment also mattered. Portable explosives, grenades, rockets, and other weapons can address many battlefield tasks without requiring a continuous stream of burning liquid.
Public concern and the human effects of flame weapons also contributed to debate about their use. Flamethrowers can cause severe burns, ignite structures, and create fires that are difficult to control. Their retirement reflected practical military considerations as well as the growing scrutiny of weapons that cause extensive burning injuries.
A Brief History of U.S. Military Flamethrowers
The U.S. military adopted flamethrowers during World War II, when troops faced fortified positions, bunkers, and other protected targets. The weapons were used in several theaters, including the Pacific, where fighting in caves and fortified island defenses made close-range flame weapons tactically useful.
Early systems were bulky and could be carried by a soldier or mounted on a vehicle. Later portable models improved on earlier designs but still required the operator to carry fuel and work within close range. The M2-series flamethrower was used during World War II and the Korean War. The M9-series followed, including versions used in Vietnam.
U.S. forces used flamethrowers in Vietnam, but they were not the only way to deliver incendiary effects. Other weapons, including incendiary rockets and bombs, served different battlefield roles. These systems should not be confused with a portable flamethrower: they did not require an infantry soldier to carry a fuel tank and project burning liquid by hand.
By the late 1970s, the military had retired its portable flamethrowers. The end of that era did not mean that fire ceased to be a factor in warfare. Rather, the specific handheld weapon became obsolete in the U.S. military’s standard equipment.
What Replaced the Flamethrower?
There was no single weapon that directly replaced the flamethrower in every role. The choice depends on the target, the mission, and the desired effect. Modern units can use explosives, grenades, rockets, machine guns, or other systems to defeat fortified positions or engage targets at a distance.
Some weapons can also produce incendiary effects, but those effects are not equivalent to a portable flamethrower. For example, a rocket or bomb may ignite a target or cause a fire, but it does not project burning fuel in the same way as a backpack weapon. The term “flamethrower” is sometimes used loosely in popular discussion, which can blur important technical differences.
Modern military operations also emphasize coordination among different units and equipment. A fortified target might be addressed through surveillance, indirect fire, engineering, or other available methods rather than by sending a soldier forward with a flame weapon.
Are Flamethrowers Legal for Civilians in the U.S.?
Federal law generally does not classify a typical flamethrower as a firearm under the main federal firearms laws. That does not mean every device is legal everywhere, or that it can be used without restrictions. State and local laws may regulate possession, sale, transport, storage, or use. Fire codes, nuisance rules, and restrictions on starting fires can also be relevant.
Rules can vary substantially by location and by the device’s design. Some laws define a flamethrowing device by the distance it can project a burning stream. California, for example, regulates certain flamethrowing devices and requires a permit for covered devices. The details depend on the applicable state law and regulations, so a general claim that “flamethrowers are legal” can be misleading.
Before buying, building, transporting, or using one, a person should check current state statutes and local ordinances, and contact the relevant authorities if the rules are unclear. A seller’s statement that a device is legal is not a substitute for checking the law where it will be possessed or operated.
Key Legal Questions to Check
- Device definition: Does the state law cover the particular device, its fuel, or its flame range?
- Permit requirements: Is a state or local permit needed for possession, testing, or use?
- Place of use: Do local fire codes restrict use near buildings, vegetation, roads, or public spaces?
- Transport and storage: Are there rules for carrying fuel or storing pressurized containers?
- Property and liability: Could use violate property rules, create a fire hazard, or expose the operator to civil liability?
What About “Not a Flamethrower” Devices?
Products marketed as “not a flamethrower” have drawn attention in the United States, including a high-profile 2018 product sold by The Boring Company. The name was a tongue-in-cheek marketing choice; the device was described as a propane torch rather than a conventional military flamethrower.
Marketing language does not determine a device’s legal status. Regulators and courts may consider how the product works, its design, and the wording of applicable laws. A consumer should not assume that a product is exempt from restrictions just because its manufacturer calls it a torch, novelty item, or “not a flamethrower.”
Even where possession is permitted, safe operation is a separate concern. Open flame and pressurized fuel can cause severe burns, fires, or explosions. Responsible use requires following the manufacturer’s instructions, keeping the device away from people and flammable materials, and complying with fire-safety rules. Some settings may prohibit its use altogether.
Are Flamethrowers Used for Civilian or Industrial Work?
Flame-producing equipment has legitimate uses outside military combat, but “flamethrower” can be an imprecise label. Agricultural workers, utility crews, and other professionals may use specialized torches for tasks such as weed control, roofing, or controlled industrial processes. These tools are designed for particular jobs and are not necessarily equivalent to a weapon intended to project burning fuel toward a target.
Such work still involves fire and may be subject to workplace safety rules, fire codes, environmental requirements, and local restrictions. For example, using a torch during dry or windy conditions can create a wildfire risk. Professional operators typically need to follow job-specific procedures and relevant safety standards.
Some online videos show people using flame devices for demonstrations or property maintenance. A video does not establish that the activity is safe, lawful, or suitable for a different location. Fire risk changes with weather, vegetation, nearby structures, fuel, and the operator’s training.
Flamethrowers Compared With Other Fire-Producing Weapons
Because “flamethrower” is often used loosely, the following distinctions help clarify what the term means:
| Device or weapon | How it produces an effect | Is it a portable flamethrower? |
|---|---|---|
| Military backpack flamethrower | Projects burning fuel from a carried tank through a nozzle. | Yes |
| Incendiary bomb | Delivers an incendiary payload from an aircraft or other platform. | No |
| Rocket or explosive weapon | Uses a projectile or blast; it may ignite materials but does not project a continuous fuel stream. | No |
| Industrial or agricultural torch | Produces a controlled flame for a specific work task. | Usually not in the military sense; design and law matter. |
These differences are useful when interpreting headlines and product descriptions. A military may use a weapon that creates fire without using a flamethrower, while a civilian tool may produce a flame without being designed as a weapon.
Common Questions About U.S. Flamethrowers
When did the U.S. military stop using flamethrowers?
The U.S. military completed the retirement of its portable flamethrowers in the late 1970s. The weapons had seen service in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, but they were removed from standard military use as tactics and equipment changed.
Does the U.S. Army still train soldiers to use flamethrowers?
Portable flamethrowers are not part of standard Army equipment, and they are not a routine weapon in current infantry training. Training for other weapons that can create fire or heat is a separate matter.
Can a person buy a flamethrower in the United States?
Possibly, depending on the product and the state and local rules. Federal firearms law generally does not treat a typical flamethrower as a firearm, but state laws, permits, fire codes, and local restrictions may apply. The exact device and location matter.
Does the U.S. use incendiary weapons?
The U.S. military has used weapons with incendiary effects, but that is not the same as using a handheld flamethrower. The type of munition, mission, and governing rules are distinct questions, and specific policies can change over time.
Reliable Sources for Checking Current Rules
For military history, the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the National Museum of the United States Army provide context on past weapons and service. For civilian ownership, the relevant state legislature, state fire marshal, and local fire department are more useful than a retailer’s product page. Federal regulations and agency guidance can be checked through official U.S. government sources, but state and municipal rules may add separate requirements.
Because laws and fire restrictions can change, anyone considering a flame-producing device should verify the current rules for the exact location and intended activity. The short answer remains: the U.S. military no longer uses portable flamethrowers as standard weapons, while civilian possession and use depend on the device and local law.