Does The U.S. Military Use The Wrong Bullets On This ‘New’ Enemy?
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
WASHINGTON - As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
“Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice,” says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. “It just has more stopping power.”
Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.
Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier’s helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today’s fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today’s battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.
Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say.
“If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn’t matter what you shoot him with,” said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army’s infantry school.
At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.
None of the M855’s shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
“The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn’t do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed,” says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.
Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia’s slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
“I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt,” says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army’s elite Delta Force. “The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn’t faze him.”
With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.
“The bullet is just not big enough,” he says. “If I’m going into a room against somebody that’s determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible.”
Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
“The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it’s going to fragment,” says Fackler. “Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It’s that simple.”
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.
“It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition,” Roberts says.
In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round’s effectiveness. The team’s findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.
But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study’s most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.
“It was manipulated,” says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. “Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better.”
Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 “an overall good performer.” Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet’s angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.
The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman.
U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them.
A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn’t enough.
“Where you hit is essential to the equation,” Radcliffe says. “I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it’s really not there at all.”
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
“One of the things I’ve discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert,” he says. “And they all have opinions.”
(AP)
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
The 5.56mm/.223cal cartridge has always been controversial, particularly in the US Military. When hajjis are hopped-up on Amphetamines and substances, they’re particularly difficult to drop with the small round. Personally, I think they should adopt a larger cartridge, with greater muzzle energy. The Rem 6.8mm SPC comes to mind…
May 26th, 2008 at 7:15 pmScrew the convention, like the Hajjis follow the shit. Don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody survive a beheading. I vote for Hollow points.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pmTrue. But with it you sacrifice accuracy, and have greater recoil. Although I think you might be able to eliminate alot of recoil if you have the bolt alined with the stock [as in the M-16/M-4] I’d like to see a larger bullet, but I don’t want to have it as to where you can’t hit Mr Durka when you shoot at him on auto.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:20 pmSomeone’s getting paid to recommend these less lethal bullets. Follow the money. Give them the cartridge size they need to stop the enemy with a shot that hits them anywhere. Stopping power is what counts. When you’re in an urban setting with guys popping out of nowhere or waiting around the corner, shooting accurately is extremely difficult, especially when your adrenaline is pumping.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:34 pmThis is from an earlier post of mine:
I hear ya about the stopping power issue. Thing is, I think the gov’t isn’t going to do anything about it. The reason is that they spent all those years convincing NATO countries to switch from 7.62 to 5.56 as the standard round. Now they’d have to admit that the 5.56 is a piece of shit and they should have kept the 7.62. That aint gonna happen and we all know it.
IMHO the M-14 is a MUCH better weapon than the ‘16.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:52 pmGood grief. We went through this 100 years ago in the Philippines fighting the same damned enemy hopped up on drugs. Our rifle, and pistol rounds went right through them, and didn’t stop them. That spurred a return to the .45 cal. pistol cartridge which would physically knock them down. The Colt .45 semi-automatic pistol served as a trusted side arm to the American military for the better part of a century until some loon decided we needed to Europeanize, and go with a pimp’s round, the 9mm.
Please note what pistol round almost all of our Special Operations guys choose. Hint: it ain’t the nine.
Yes, a big, heavy round is heavier than a little round. But, if you only need one shot, or you only get one shot it doesn’t matter how much it kicks, and it weighs less than several of the “lighter” rounds.
And, anybody who tells you that all you have to do is aim well, has never been in a gunfight in a stair well, or a market stall. The kill zone for a 5.56 is about the size of a donut. Go ahead. Hit that when you’re pumped, breathing dust in a dark hall way, or in bright sun, and deep shadows in a warren of alleys.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pmThe 6.8 SPC would be perfect. The difference in recoil is barely noticeable and it uses a familiar AR frame.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pmaa-12
May 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pmSince we didn’t sign the Hague agreement, why not just adopt hollow points? I’ve shot stuff with 5.56 HP rounds and they really blow up pretty good. The same police logical reasoning for them applies. People will whine about the grievous wounds HP rounds will make, but ignore a 12G shotgun loaded with buckshot. Those clean rooms out pretty good too. Our guys are allowed to carry shotguns.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:21 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c&feature=related
May 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pmShot placement is greater than all. People are always going to argue about this and most of them won’t bother getting their facts straight anyway. There is a reason we train our troops to shoot in single fire rather than 3 round or full auto when given the choice. Even then on full auto it’s six to eight round bursts.
Keep in mind we’re killing far more of the enemy than they are us and they’re using the heavier bullet. It isn’t the tool so much as the men who wield them. And if you want to improve the tool you should be asking why aren’t we using frangible ammo instead of arguing over bullet size.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pmUp here in the mountains, the .223 is a “varmint round”, and most self-respecting hunters wouldn’t use it even for deer, much less anything larger.
Someone already beat me to pointing out WHY the USArmy went to the vernerable M1911 - and why we KEPT it for so long - but at least someone else has the right idea about going to “soft-point” bullets.
There’s no such thing as a “perfect” combat round, but for my money, I’d pack an M14 (despite the VERY respectable accuracy I got my M4), and the M1911 rather than the M9.
As for stairways or alleys (or “unlocking” doors)…hard to beat the 12 gauge….
May 26th, 2008 at 8:55 pmOK, Birddog, that AA-12 is really something! Load it with several types of rounds, and this little girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zlWplfLQ2E
could stop a car bomb, maybe even a truck. The only drawback I see upon first seeing it is the size of the magazine, but DAMN!
May 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pmScrew the Hague Convention.
Start mass production on the Mk262 ammo for the current M4’s. A single upper torso hit in the center 1/2 will put them out of the fight to 300M.
May 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pmMy beloved General Patton once said, “In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised.”
May 26th, 2008 at 9:45 pmIs it me or is the M-14 the logical evolution of the M-1, what with its detachable magazine, and select fire capability? To bring it up to par with modern standards all one needs to do is replace the wood furniture on the rifle with modern synthetics, and modify the sear for three round burst instead of just semi/full auto.
In my opinion the adoption of the .223 spitting M-16 is the best example of how the “Military-Congressional Complex” puts its own socialist aims ahead of the welfare of our fighting men.
a 7mm short magnum caliber could be a good choice in a well designed lightweight rifle.
May 27th, 2008 at 12:22 am““If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn’t matter what you shoot him with,” said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, ”
Fucking retard. Ever been in a firefight Major? If I am able to hit him, I want that shithead to go down.
“TouchStone
Up here in the mountains, the .223 is a “varmint round”, and most self-respecting hunters wouldn’t use it even for deer, much less anything larger.”
Excellent point. Whether it’s a person or an animal, killing is killing. What round does the best job? Hunters may have some valuable info.
Hollowpoints? I’m pretty sure I remember being issued hollowpoints in Fallujah. I might have been dreaming. Convention? Actually no, we weren’t issued hollowpoints.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:08 amPull out those old .45 cal Tommies. I’m sure our guys would love to have them instead of M16 or M4. Perfect for urban combat. Ask some old Nazis about it.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:39 amM468 is a better solution. 6.8SPC. BTW experiments were done with digfferent ammo and powder loads in Afghanistan. The article was published in Infantry Mag last year.
Increasing lethality can be done without changing barrels to accomuidate lets say a 6.8 round.
It doesn’t surprise me that this argument has gone on for 30+ years now. The .223 is just not enough stopping power.
The M-1 and M14 has the lethality that the M-16 lacks. You’d think by now someone at TRADOC or Picatiny would get the message.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:52 amThis is part of the reason SOCOM looks to be using/developing a new round:
[urlhttp://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20080516.aspx[/url]
May 27th, 2008 at 4:01 amThis is part of the reason SOCOM looks to be using/developing a new round:
[url]http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20080516.aspx[/url]
May 27th, 2008 at 4:26 amThere are several items that should be pointed out regarding adoption of the M-16. the 16 needs more cleaning to operate, much to the consternation of many early VN vets who had to turn in their trusty M14’s for the 16. The 16 was needed at the time as a smaller weapon for the nungs and other little brown brothers fighting communism along with the US. M1’s and M14’s can be packed almost full of dirt and function quite well.
Talk to one of the too few WWII survivors (they are being taken from us so quickly now), see how much sand was jammed in the weapons when hitting the dirt in the Island hopping campaigns. Yes, our vets cleaned weapons when they could, but there was a lot of times when they couldn’t do much in the way of cleaning.
The 16 was and is great for those of a much smaller stature. Also, the 16 had the new trick of the forward assist, which is to be used when it gets too dirty to cycle properly, and the grit in the chamber doesn’t let the next round chamber. Hit the forward assist, and pull the trigger again. What a great selling point that was!
As mentioned above, having the bolt alligned with the stock, add the recoil buffer as the M16 does, and going back to a larger round would make all the difference. Frangible ammo is a good idea as well.
Even though I always had no problem hitting center mass at 800M with the 16, that was always a much slower rate of fire. at 200 yards and closer, it is almost funny at how accuracy and higher rates of fire do NOT go hand in hand….yeah, that major who implies that target selction, aim or w2hatever is more important that ammo size is the typical jackass who has no idea of common sense, and is most likely getting a kickback somewhere from the purchase of the 5.56 rounds. maybe his family makes them???
Many people are in agreement with the M1911. I still want one, maybe some day. If the drunk LT playing quick draw Mcgraw had had a .45 instead of a 9mm, the round that hit my left knee most likely would have resulted in my acquiring the nickname of stumpy, and I would have been out of the Corps much earlier with a partial diability. As it was, the lucky (unlucky??) angle caused the 9mm to do only soft tissue damage. the larger round could very well have caused much greater damage.
Yeah, I thanked my lucky stars and the good lord for the smaller round and ability to recover within a couple weeks, but ever since I have remained convinced that the 45 is the way to go for a side arm, in pure stopping power. and our forces need the 7.62, rather than the 5.56 for the standard rifle.
with the metalology available today, and what the US is already paying for new rifles, I am sure we could do a much better job of arming our forces. Mattel will gladly make whatever size stock is needed. Good blued steel barrels to handle a larger round, no problem. The problem is the politicians have become involved in the process, as well as officers that are angling for employment with companies looking to sell product and material to the military once they get out of uniform. You can’t tell me the tons of brass at the Pentagon can acutally afford to work in the DC area, even with added BOQ and BAS funding. there are too many guys getting “assistance” on the side…
That is one investigation congress should get going, what sort of influence those have with purchasing items for the military in relation to what they end up doing when they get into the civilian market. Then again, that might put too many politicians into the investigation as well, since people like the traitor Murtha have a lot of influence in military contracts.
Anyway, all for arming our men and women in uniform with what they need, not what some damned bean counter says “is the best according to tests and lab trials”.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:10 amIts all about one problem, FMJ.
5.56 is not a bad caliber even in 5.56 as long as you can get the 150-200 yards distance in order to get the projectile to tumble on impact… As most urban encounters are measured in feet the reason why most times they just punch right through is obvious.
If you are going to use FMJ you need a fatter projectile to increase the chances your target absorbing the force of impact. 7.62 and the like is the in service solution, as there are already plenty of them around.
An easyer and more cost effective solution is to open up your arsinals and all those crates of ammo and reload the projectiles from FMJ to… Well, anything else. Balistic tip, HP, ect.
I do love some pencil pushing fuck saying its a lack of accuracy thou, obviously some shithead who has never been under or returning fire with his blood up and his fine motor control shot to shit because of the adrenaline.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 amI’m certainly no soldier and not worthy of casting judgment concerning ammo or anything else of military hardware. I’ll leave that to you experts. But I don’t have to be a military analyst to know when I read something like this:
“If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn’t matter what you shoot him with,” said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army’s infantry school.
To know there’s a major that needs to be relieved of any real decision making authority. As a civilian, am I to believe at close proximity or room to room, our soldiers have time to put a jihadist in the crosshairs?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:30 amThe M16/M4 series of rifles will do the job. To get something new in the field would take a couple of years to implement. Those are a couple of years that we do not have.
Someone said that the FMJ is the problem. That is it in a nutshell. The 62gr SS109 is a steel core penetrator that simply does not give a good energy dump, particularly at M4 velocities.
The short-term answer is a heavier HP bullet that will reliably expend its energy in close-quarter combat and still has adequate terminal effect at extreme ranges (300M). The short-term answer is the Black Hills Mk262 Mod 1 ammo. The SDM’s in the Army have been using this to devastating effect within reasonable distances. Many one shot fight-stoppers have been recorded with this ammo, but much of that can be directly traced to the projectile being delivered where it needs to go too.
Regarding those that imagine they can consistently make 800M shots using a rack grade M16 and M855 ammo…keep dreaming. The rifles and the ammo are simply not capable. That is a fact.
Even the highly trained SDM’s with specialized rifles (1 MOA capable with match triggers, freefloated match barrels, etc, etc) and Mk262 ammo (effectively match grade ammo) cannot do it from prone position with a bipod. There is such a thing as “wind” and most folks have zero clue as to how to read it or adjust for it. Beyond 300M, it becomes a huge factor.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:41 amMy dad to this day, still swears he saw the .223cal M193 from his M16A1, deflect off thick jungle leaves, back in the day. They had to use high volumes of fire from their M16s to guarantee the NVA were KIA. While it is true we use a better cartridge now than the M193, I still can’t say I’m very fond of the 5.56mm round, other than its superb accuracy.
At 5′6″ and 150-155lbs or so, I’m not a big guy, but I can handle my Garand with a good degree of control. That’s a damn big rifle, too!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:06 amThe M16 is actually very user friendly when it comes to recoil, the amount of ammo one can carry, etc. The thing is that it requires one to maintain it more than prior counterparts.
More importantly, the Army has now instituted a completely new training program and it’s all about Marksmanship. The Marines instituted a far more advanced marksmanship program and not too long ago. The hierarchy is finally recognizing that rounds need to be delivered on target for them to be effective. The old doctrine of “more rounds fired means less rounds coming back at you” is finally going by the wayside. You still have to deliberately shoot the bad guy to make him stop shooting at you. This extra emphasis on marksmanship skills will equate to less rounds expended per KIA, even using the current ammo. Better ammo will make the soldiers even more effective.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:22 amWhen all else fails ask the special operators what they use. They have the latitude to use non-standard (non issue) weapons. For years they have used HK MP5’s and other weapons to good effect.
I also think that the bad guys choice of AK’s with 7.62 is based on some logic … economics being a factor but reliability, availability, and effectiveness are also considerations.
The .45ACP is one hell of a stopper and in a modern frame would be one bad boy urban warfare weapon. Same holds true for the venerable 12ga.
Bottom line is why use a 3 iron when you need a sand wedge??
May 27th, 2008 at 9:12 amHere’s some things about urban combat. You need a round with better stopping power and a shorter weapon when entering a room. There are a few nice bull-pup designs that retain a good barrel length to get the best accuracy and velocity while shortening overall weapon length. Also replacing the gas tube in the M16 with a gas piston design will enhance reliability. You won’t get all that nasty gas in your receiver to gum things up. Then use HP rounds and you’ll get yourself a real good weapon. I believe there are gas-piston conversions available for current M16’s too.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:17 amand with lightweight high tech composites and alloys availabe these days it may very well be possible to design an mp5 like weapon which only weighs a few pounds and could be chambered in .50AE etc for close combat situations that could easily be carried.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:16 amRoom sweeping = Winchester 1300 defender
May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 amHere is a good thread on this exact subject with ballistic test no less.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=378548
From my own experience I can tell you that 5.56 XM193 55gr FMJ and M855 62gr will punch through mild steel sheet 1/16″ to 3/32″ no problem at 250 to 300yds. I have shot it through 3 and 4 ceramic floor tiles spaced 6″ apart no problem.
Which means it will fly through flesh with no problem.
Not good ammo for CQB and they both suck in SBR’s (barrels shorter than 16″).
Drop the Hague rules that the Haj pays little attention and get some ammo that explodes on soft targets upon impact and sprays pig blood and bullet fragments all throughout the victim.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:28 amWell it’s evident that the .223 isn’t well suited to the CQB of urban Iraq.
Nor is it well suited to the ranges often involved in Afghanistan.
The cheap and dirty solution is the 7.62×51(.308Win).
May 27th, 2008 at 1:55 pmFor CQB…..
May 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2kEg8rEPl8
Kill ‘em dead.
May 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pmSpringfield M1A 308 soft points, high velocity splaterage.
May 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pmBest solution:
Let all soldiers issued a 5.56 M16/4 keep their weapon and ammo it may have it’s drawbacks but it has it’s positives also.
Then issue each soldier a second upper assembly chambered for a different round. This can be done rather cheaply because many won’t require altered lowers or even different mags. Then all that would need to be done is that each squad leader/fire team chief would need to set their loadplan for their team to make sure that caliber type is accommodated for (i.e. make sure not everyone carries one or the other thereby degrading the squad’s capabilities).
While the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel or 308/7.62 are all decent calibers, there’s one that would be even better if applied as I’ve said above…
http://www.teppojutsu.com/458.htm
Just like in drag racing, when in doubt GO BIG
May 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pmLots of good points here. I was a ordance engineer years back. I was lucky enough to work with some of the guys on Gene Stoner’s development team.
Another aspect of the thinking at the time with the 5.56 was to create casualties, not fatalities. It was implied that the casualties would be more of a burden to the enemies military in caring for these casualties. I dont think they were envisioning the terrorist’s and irregulars of today.
My vote is for a heavier controlled expansion munition. I think a soldier should have a choice and it can be implemented with the next shipment.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pmIt is not for nothing, in the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2kEg8rEPl8
that BB points out, that they named this new weapon the Kriss. “Kris” — one s — is the name of the sword/dagger (depending on the maker) that the aforementioned (my first post) Moro tribesmen used to attack our guys a hundred years ago. They’d be tightly wrapped in cloth, fortified with drugs, and our bullets simply passed right through without even slowing them down much.
The .45 ACP is a war club. It will physically knock them down. So will a 12 guage, but, as much as I liked that new 12 guage sub machine gun shown in a previous post, I haven’t seen a pistol with the portability, controllability, and brute, physical knock down power of a .45 ACP in a weapon like the model 1911 Colt Army Pistol. Neither, apparently, have our Special Ops guys.
“Kris” BTW was pronounced “crease,” but I have no hope that it would be by our people should the Kriss be adopted, nor do I care.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:52 pmEvery aim should be a head shot and to save a lot of trouble, if wounded, the final tap should be administered at close range. Urban conflicts are just nasty anyways. Show up with the larger set of balls and just plain fuckem. We waste too much time discerning if hadji is good, bad, or an observer. If you can’t stand the heat then leave the country. If you are a non-combatant, then prove it by your assistance to point out the bad guys. If your allegeince is to some murdering scum sucker , then by association so are you, too bad, so sad. As a parent, with two sons having done multiple tours already, and due to go back yet again, I have no qualms about using politically incorrect munitions, shoot them with a shit pistol for all I care just make sure the ragheaded bastards are dead, dead, dead,DEAD.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:21 pmI have a Springfield Armory Socom. The muzzle break is very effective! Recoil feels less than my 14lb. custom M1A Service rifle Match gun (M14). Both shooting 168gr(hot)Match reloads. This little gun is a big can of whoop ass. Also did phonebook shooting with 5.7x 28mm, aganist 9mm, and 45. You would be suprised what this nasty little round does out of a handgun with 20 round mag. Don’t critize until you shoot one. 100yd shots w/redot or green laser. IMHO the 6.8 just does not add enough to the party. A 6.5 or 7mm-308 would be good. I have a custom match AR service rifle - jams & you have to stick your pinky in to the port to clear/ blow a primer means breaking down to clear. My son keeps taking the M1A and giving me the AR. He shot at Perry for five years. M1A’s (M14) don’t jam. ??? What ever happen to Oak Ridge Tungsten bullets every one was so hot on - army bought large quanity at buck apiece 1200yd 223 bullets!!
May 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm