Tom G

I'm with useing hollow points. what does the enemy use. We should go into this war with no holds barred and to win.

SIXTO

To bad we allow NATO to call the shots on this topic. NATO says no HP, so ball it is.

__________________
In a land of sheep, even a toothless wolf is king.

Wake Up! The zombie invasion has begun years ago.

OPFOR

Not for nothing, Randy, but have you ever humped one of these, and 400 rounds of ammo (and body armor, and water, food, grenades, radio, batteries, optics, and on and on and on) up and down mountains, in 120 degree heat, for miles and miles and days and days? An M4 gets heavy right around the 10k mark... (And yes, I know, our grandfathers carried all that and more, it can be done. My spotters carried M14s. We all had optics and lights that made our weapons heavier. I carried a spare barrel, tripod, T&E, and 800rds of 7.62N linked when I first got to 2/75, so I know it's possible...doesn't mean I'm in any rush to do it again.)

Also consider that our troops right now are by and large fighting out of vehicles, where space is at a very high premium. Of course, when they do dismount, they are often as not on a city street, fighting in and around buildings, with all that that entails. Short, light, maneuverable weapons are more then a convenience, they're a necessity.

Just so you know, this isn't an attack - I think that improvements could be made to our small arms as well. I just think that many people clamor for a big, long, heavy “battle rifle” without thinking through all the situations that a soldier and his rifle are faced with. I wish I could carry a controllable, 6 lb rifle in .50BMG with a 6” long, 50 round magazine, but I can’t. All things in firearms are based on compromise, and this is certainly no exception. In fact, the assault rifle may be the biggest “compromise” weapon out there…

__________________
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

rocky

Bigger bang = More recoil. Lighter recoil/ faster follow up shots, more ammo can be carried.

__________________
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson


Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

Link to my kydex builds:http://rocknloadkydex.blogspot.com/

age_ranger

Gee, lets issue our soldiers Hollow Points and see just how much more effective their firearms become. Stop holding back our troops and give them the tools to get the job done. Just a simple improvement like ammunition can make a world of difference. I'll chip in for a case of 9mm Winchester Ranger 124gr +P when they approve it!! Good enough for Cops and Citizens of the USA, it should be good enough for our Troops!!

__________________
www.bushmasterforum.com

Colin

Let them have an M60 for a week and they will be begging for the M249 back.

mcp1810

So our guys want a heavier round like the 7.62x39. The Soviets were giving that up to have a lighter round, the 5.45mm ( Over Kalashnikovs objections). I of course want our guys to have the best arms and ammo possible, but if we have to standardize on one cartidge, isn't the grass always going to be greener on the other side of the fence?

randytulsa2

OPFOR:

No offense taken- you raise very practical points that I didn't consider. It all has to be taken into account. There were reasons why the 5.56 & aluminum & etc. came into being and subsequent use, despite current frustrations and criticisms.

I was in the Marine Corps 20 + years ago, a 0311. I did some humping. I carried an M16A1, serial number 1052985 (I still remember). My persepctive then was that I hated carrying all the stuff I carried but I guess I wouldn't have noticed a few more pounds. I griped constantly about my rifle and wanted to switch it for my deer rifle (Ruger M77 .30-06) back home- it actually shot every time I had a round in the chamber.

OTOH, I didn't carry all my gear, with or without my '06, into being shot at, day after day, in 120-degree heat, either. Not at all, not even close. THAT could make a big ol' difference.

And I was a big boy in real good shape--but some guys had problems with all the stuff we did carry, and more weight, even a few pounds, would have clearly been worse.

And the cramped quarters thing- - I never even considered that.

It all needs to go into the mix, I guess. It ain't just firepower that counts in this context. Great points, man. That's why I love this board. I can actually learn from other people thinking of things I haven't.

__________________
"...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

Blackeagle

Bigger bang=More punch on the far end and less need for a second (or third, or fourth) shot.

Sig 210

"To bad we allow NATO to call the shots on this topic. NATO says no HP, so ball it is."

It ain't NATO, it is The Hague Convention of 1899.


"The Declaration was generated by the state of development of firearms and ammunition at the end of the nineteenth century; the wording arose from the rudimentary understanding of wound ballistics at that time. A treaty prohibition on “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions” was an adequate legal instrument for addressing the existing problem."

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/irrc_849_Coupland_et_Loye/$File/irrc_849_Coupland_et_Loye.pdf