Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: John Jorsett
There must be a treaty against using dum dum's.
And we always play by the rules.
2 posted on
02/02/2007 12:26:19 PM PST by
siunevada
(If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
To: John Jorsett
Meanwhile, the Marines have "discovered" all those M14's that went "missing" a few years ago and are busily refurbishing and reissuing them...
3 posted on
02/02/2007 12:26:40 PM PST by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: John Jorsett
I say give em all M14 receivers in hopped up metal or fiberglass stocks.
That'll fix em.
4 posted on
02/02/2007 12:26:49 PM PST by
rlmorel
(Islamofacism: It is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out. Or chops off a head.)
To: John Jorsett
I can't remember for sure but wasn't this an issue that was pointed out BEFORE making the decision to go to the 5.56 round instead of the 7.62?
7 posted on
02/02/2007 12:28:43 PM PST by
Domandred
To: John Jorsett
Would this be a good time for someone to post a Garand or BAR picture?
8 posted on
02/02/2007 12:28:48 PM PST by
Mr. Lucky
To: John Jorsett
Deja vu all over again...........
To: John Jorsett
Skinny people live longer.
To: John Jorsett
The 5.56 round is obsolete. They are developing even smaller rounds with a velocity of 4,000 fps. But they are for shots at 100 yards or less. Beyond that..I agree.. 7.62mm.
To: John Jorsett
12 posted on
02/02/2007 12:30:33 PM PST by
taxed2death
(A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
To: John Jorsett
Are Iraqi's any more slender than NVA or Viet Cong infantrymen? I'm sure that this is indeed a problem, but didn't Army Ordnance shelve it's immediate plans to go to a new 6.8 mm infantry rifle?
13 posted on
02/02/2007 12:30:33 PM PST by
Tallguy
To: John Jorsett
To: John Jorsett
There is a REASON why 30 caliber rounds were the mainstay of the battle field during the two largest wars. AR10 and M14 bring firepower when needed.
Oh and by the way .... long range is not 100 meters.... more like 300 meters. Out there, you really do want some heavy lead.
To: John Jorsett
5.56mm not getting the job done... maybe that's why 2 of these guys are holding M14's...
23 posted on
02/02/2007 12:34:21 PM PST by
verum ago
(The Iranian Space Agency: set phasers to jihad!)
To: John Jorsett
25 posted on
02/02/2007 12:35:28 PM PST by
Tunehead54
(Nothing funny here ;-)
To: John Jorsett
No more aiming center mass??
Ehh... how bout switching to hollowpoints?
26 posted on
02/02/2007 12:36:19 PM PST by
wizecrakker
(Trying to behave)
To: John Jorsett
How about 22LR hollow points, no recoil, and you can kill at 100 yards.
39 posted on
02/02/2007 12:41:27 PM PST by
agincourt1415
(The Sum of all Fears: Democrats running the war or trying to run away from the war on terror.)
To: John Jorsett
I own one gun - an SKS which uses the 7.62 rounds. I bought 1,000 rounds but only have about 940 left. ;)
It packs a pretty good punch and I am shocked at the accuracy I was able to achieve with the adjustable sights and no scope.
It's amazing what you can get for $105.
42 posted on
02/02/2007 12:43:37 PM PST by
RobRoy
(Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in 1938.)
To: John Jorsett
It's the 62gr M855 matched with the 16" M4 barrel that's causing these problems more than just the 5.56 alone.
I think XM193 in my 1x8.25 twist 18" barrel is best all-around, but if the US military must stick with their huge stockpile of M855 they oughtta try using it from a 1x7 twist 24" barrel and see what happens.
... Or just go back to .308 Winchester and forget all about this 'twist/grain/bbl length' baloney.
To: John Jorsett
6.5 Grendel - AR15/M16/M4 lower with a new upper, that eats a MUCH better round - AR10 ballistics (the 7.62 or .308 to you folks) in an AR15 package. Throws a 120 gr. Nosler at 2900 fps at 100 yds. Typical 7.62 NATO performance is 144 gr. at 2700 fps. We paid our dues to get the Stoner design tweaked. Why not get what we paid for with a "bolt-on" mod which is already designed and in production?
66 posted on
02/02/2007 12:57:38 PM PST by
RKV
( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
To: John Jorsett
No problem if you just shoot em in the face.
That's the way I do it.
73 posted on
02/02/2007 1:01:49 PM PST by
American_Centurion
(No, I don't trust the government to automatically do the right thing.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson