Skip to comments.Concern Growing Over U.S. Troops' Ammo
Posted on 06/07/2006 5:42:42 PM PDT by jmc1969
click here to read article
hehe. Yeah, I hated the PT sweats. I'm not that tall but aftr wearing them a few times the pants would only go down to my shins. It they were alot of fun when they got wet from rolling around on the ground after it rained. I tell ya, I spent nine years in the Army and am grateful for the experiences I had, but I will definitely NOT miss the never ending stream of stupidity I had to face during those years.
Gold Dots are generally better, but the Golden Sabers are not bad at all. The latter tends to expand faster.
The thing about Gold Dots is that they give very consistent performance across a wide range of conditions. They do not expand as much as some others like Golden Sabers, but they also rarely fail and work just fine through clothing, car doors, and just about anything else you can throw at them.
Since we do not get to choose the conditions under which a cartridge is used when things get ugly, I prefer reliable terminal performance under broad conditions over slightly better terminal performance in narrow conditions.
I've used everything under the sun, and honestly I do not think it makes that much difference in an unobstructed shot, which most are. I tend to go with Gold Dots because of their reliability through weird materials, their relative inexpensiveness, and because the bullet design is a good match for my cartridge preference (165gr .40).
I've shot them with an arrow in the lungs, had them run 50 yards and fall over dead. I've shot them with a 12 ga. 3" slug at 10 yards (and there is no better stopping power than a 3" slug at 10 yards), ripping off the upper half of the heart as determined when field dressing them, and had said deer run 200 yards while crossing two steep ravines.
I've also shot deer with a .30-06 through the lungs and had them run 150 yards. I've shot deer in the same spot and had them drop instantly and never move
So, since the arrow-shot deer dropped the quicker than the one hit with a massive 3" slug, should we assume that the arrow has better stopping power?
Nope, we should assume that shot placement is a key factor in stopping power. We should also recognize that NOTHING guarantees an instant stop. You should continue to fire until the target drops. Even with their heart destroyed (and I mean literally shot to pieces), I've seen deer run like they were not even hit. Adrenaline is an amazing drug and animals (humans included) can absorb tremendous punishment.
As the orignal article pointed out, they shot a guy 7 times in the torso and finally shot him in the head with a pistol to kill him. So, why not shoot him once in the torso and six times in the head? As my hunting experience has shown, the torso is not a guranteed stopping shot. Destroying the brain, on the other hand, will cause a loss of conciousness and will work much more effectively.
I'm sorry to hear that soldiers feel undergunned. I can only say that if a 12-gauge 3" slug at point-blank range will not drop a deer instantly (and they will not always do that) then the argument about .223 versus .308 is a ridiculous one to have. You just have to hope that your first shot hits the target in a way that they drop in their tracks. I'd say the odds of that are about 50/50, even with a cannon like a 12-gauge.
In the winter of 1938-1939, the Russians found out the hard way that in close fighting, the Finnish submachineguns with their "weak" rounds killed more Russians even though the Russians had the "powerful" 7.62x54r.
A couple years later, the Germans found out the hard way that their powerful 8mm was of little use if the soldier couldn't put his head up to fire because the air was full of "puny" PPsh-41 7.62x25 rounds that would in close combat kill a man just as dead as if hit by the 8mm or, Russian 7.62x54r.
Probably the same way as the Black Rhino did about a decade ago.
Agreed. The Russians found that out the hard way against the Finns in the 1938-1939 Winter War. The Germans didn't pay attention to the Russo-Finnish War and as a result, were taught a hard lesson by the Russians that in CQB, a 7.62x25 will kill you just as dead as a 7.62x56r or 7.92.
Before trusting your life to such technique, I'd strongly suggest that you try that out on the range first and see if you can even hit the target board with the "customized" unbalanced ammo.
Give a look at the .45 Winchester Magnum carbine, developed by 3-Ten corporation.
The president of that company just got a rejection letter from Picatinny Arsenal. Reason for rejection: the round is not a "type classified caliber."
Now, tell me if Picatinny is taking care of the soldiers.
Try giving a look at www.3-ten.com
I would carry the 3-ten.
It might make a decent sub-gun, but you couldn't hit a damned thing with it past 150 yards or so.
It might be fun to shoot, but I sure wouldn't carry one into combat.