Posted on 02/02/2007 12:23:59 PM PST by John Jorsett
...with or without grenade launchers?
1) There have been a number of studies by the Army and USMC since the beginning of the Afghanistan campaign and through the current Iraq campaign that are all coming to the same conclusion - and yes, it's the same result that we saw in Vietnam.
FYI, the original as-designed M-16 and ammo combo *didn't* jam. The government changed the ammo spec afterwards and then created the jam-o-matic. The AR-15 jams for other reasons too, but I thought I'd mention the reason for the powder jams.
2) The actual reports do name various personnel (by rank, not name) that submitted statements.
3) They're still doing it. Same thing happens when Marines go into the field with the M16A3 and later variants - the 3 round burst limiter gets "combat lossed".
4) Most of them with a choice *are* using a 1911 variant. The only reason we have a 9mm sidearm is because of the NATO treaty obligations (and because first we forced 7.62mm on them, then forced 5.56mm on them, so the Europeans returned the favor with the 9mm.)
"Fighting the last war"...
Garand was built (1936) with an 8 round magazine & that god awful clip because a flat bottom was believed better for trenches and for use of a sandbag rest.
Yeah. I was truely unhappy when they jerked my M14 from my affectionate hands and gave me that BB gun.
Yes, but by using the 7.62 NATO, that means that you can either supplement the squad machine gunner's ammo, or if he has extra, use it in your weapon (if he has an M240G, not the POS M249).
But a quick death prevents both. Having several neat, .22 or .30 cal holes punched through you OTOH, IS needless pain, harm, & suffering.
Don't some of "them" also bitch about the use of .50BMG against a person with a rifle on this same ground; or, at least on grounds of "disproportionate" force?
It's the enemy, stupid; kill them quick and in overwhelming numbers, by any means at hand, until they all die or quit.
The AR-15 is fundamentally flawed and will continue to be so. There is no way to fix the eventual fouling of the upper receiver and chamber.
Stoner fixed the design with the AR-18, but nobody in the US was interested at the time.
The IRA liked it in the form of the AR-180, and they gave the Brits fits with it. Very reliable weapon, equal to the AK, and with the accuracy of the AR.
Would it be feasible to re-bore the M4 and M16 to use 7.62mm?
That's why .50 BMG is designated as an "anti-materiel" or "anti-vehicle" caliber, as are the rifles that fire it.
Garand design was updated by the Italians... Think of a M14 in 30-06.
I believe it was designated the BM-58. Used to be available back in '70s; Garand gas-operation and 20rnd mag. in 30-06. Wish I'd bought one when they were around.
No problem if you just shoot em in the face.
That's the way I do it.
The Convention also doesn't mention hollow points or mushrooming bullets. That is how we have interpreted the convention.
It's an interpretation of one line in Section II, Chapter I, Article 23:
---
Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
To employ poison or poisoned arms;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
---
However, since that is how we have interpreted it for a very long time it would be very difficult to change that interpretation.
The .308/7.62 NATO is the .30-06's ballistic twin.
And the M-14 *is* an updated Garand-type already. The BM-*59* (the 58 was the prototype) is largely pointless.
They should make the case that they're just trying to remove the terrorist's clothing =)
Way i heard it was that commercial ammo did't jam but using up our stockpile of dirtier WW2 powder overwhelmed the gas system..(?)
Of course the solution was 'troops should clean their weapons more often'.
While at Suwon AB,Korea in 69-70 our CSC building had a huge room full of M-14's with boxes and boxes of ammo. Whle working in the armory I occasionlly would take one out to the range for fun...definately more bang for the buck but harder to control...three shots and you've climbed off sight picture. A mixture of tools (weapons) to get the job done seems desireable but logistically becomes harder to support. Personally, I think an AR-10 would be a great all purpose weapon, espcially if they sported it into M-4 configuration for house to house duty.
Double Tap ping!...*W* I wont tell if u dont...
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.