Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: El Gato; Squantos; archy
I like the 6.8, but I wonder if it will ever be issued in enough numbers to have a long term impact (non-ballistically speaking).

In the short term, simple changes in bullet design could radically increase the effectiveness of the current caliber and rifle issued to 90% of troops. Russian ammo, for example, is far more effective with the hollow space-penetrator-driver design. But our JAGs won't permit our men to use that type of ammo. Beehive rounds are fine, cluster bombs are fine, but decent ammo for the troops is verboten. Go figure.

173 posted on 04/08/2005 2:26:30 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]


To: Travis McGee

I have a directive/order/decision we were issued by our command that said HP ammo was authorized for all but a declared war......uniformed troops in such a fight get ball ammo and terrorists get the good stuff for CT ops..... I'll have to hunt it up and scan for ya to peek at when I get home !


176 posted on 04/08/2005 2:38:28 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

To: Travis McGee
Russian ammo, for example, is far more effective with the hollow space-penetrator-driver design

Do they make it in 5.56X41 or 7.62x51? I don't currently have a 5.56 although I do have an SKS, so I guess I could shoot some 7.62x39 in that, if they make that ammo in the older caliber.

But our JAGs won't permit our men to use that type of ammo. Beehive rounds are fine, cluster bombs are fine, but decent ammo for the troops is verboten. Go figure.

Not to mention Fuel Air Explosives, and of course Nukes. I'd say we need some new JAGs, and not just on the ammo question. It is kinda weird, since the applicable language of the 1907 Hague Convention prohibits: "(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". However the earlier 1899 convention stated "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.", so I guess the JAG's are using the early more specific verbiage to define what is meant by "projectiles calculated to cause unnecessary suffering". Pity. Of course the original 5.56 (and the original 7.62x51) ball was not designed to expand or flatten either, rather to yaw due to hydrodynamic instability in flesh or flesh like substances. A bullet going through sideways, after entering point first, dumps it's energy more quickly into the target.

181 posted on 04/08/2005 3:13:23 PM PDT by El Gato (Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson