Posted on 02/02/2007 12:23:59 PM PST by John Jorsett
I was only talking if you were going to something totally new for military weapons.
That's still saying we can only kill them under the most extreme of circumstances.
We may as well play Electronic Battleship with them to determine the outcome of battles.
.308 ping
Thanks. My instincts said they were banned in WWI, but the 1924 convention was all I could come up with.
First you get a 20 mm case, then neck it down to 5.56 mm.
Fill it with some very very slow powder and you are good to go.
There have been learned books written on the subject. WW2 powder had nothing to do with it, they switched to a different cheaper powder and changed the muzzle velocity. The WW2-era smallarms powder was all gone by the end of Korea.
The commercial ammo stayed with the original powder spec and didn't have a problem. The issue ammo had issues with the twist rate which caused greater fouling.
And yes, the "solution" is still the same. Even though the problem now is the sand and crud that the weapons operate in....
Please.
Please.
Let that stupid MYTH about a "wounding" bullet die.
There was NEVER any specification for a "wounding" bullet.
The 5.56mm bullet's primary wounding mechanism is penetration and FRAGMENTATION. Always has been.
And trying to clear a room with an M14 is much less than ideal. Compact firepower (M4 with 14.5" barrel is a much better choice when entering tight quarters against multiple opponents.
M14s are being used by all services, but in SUPPORT of soldiers carrying 5.56mm rounds.
Good luck, because you'd have to convince Logistics Command about that. As it is, they're annoyed that more and more units are dumping the 5.56 M249 SAW in favor of the M240G in 7.62 for the SAW role.
Field robots with gatling guns. Use the 5.56 when you go around finishing everything off.
Which weighs more? 1 .30 round or 2 .223 rounds? (Screw the damned Froggy metric system.)
If part of the point of the smaller round was to allow the carrying of more rounds, then that more than defeats the purpose, no?
Um, tell that to McNamara. He's stated repeatedly that that was the logic behind his order to adopt it.
Note that I didn't say that I necessarily agreed, just that that was the logic behind it.
"HOLLOWPOINTS WILL NOT PENETRATE BODY ARMOR OR BUILDINGS."
They do in Hollywood.
/sarc
Ok, I may have slightly exagerated. ;)
Thing is, the AR-15-type is still jamming in the field under adverse conditions, and that is unacceptable. Yes, the original problems have been "solved", but the same symptoms with different causes keep appearing.
Yeah, but I think the Koran specifically mentions that they are okay. And you get bonus virgins in paradise.
I don't think the psycho murderers that pass themselves off as jihadis will be sitting down to sign the Geneva Convention anytime soon.
I never had any respect for the 5.56, especially after seeing a group of SPs trying to dispatch a small black bear with one. The bear had wandered into the housing area and the cops decided to kill it. They fired all 50 rounds that they were carrying, hitting the bear 38 times. It continued running and eventually went up a tree. The cops finally called in and had someone bring a 12 guage.
I've seen a piece of brush the size of a pencil deflect a 5.56 bullet way off target. It doesn't have the mass to penetrate at any distance. Once you get out several hundred yards you have the same bullet size and velocity as a 22 magnum.
Don't even get me started on the 9mm.
The Russians actually have a very interesting take for house clearing - a short-barrel AK shotgun in full-auto.
Coooool....any way to get that for the home?
How about NO? See my above post - HOLLOWPOINTS DO NOT PENETRATE BODY ARMOR. NOT EVEN CRAPPY SOVIET-ERA BODY ARMOR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.