Study: Soldiers Want Deadlier Guns - Page 3

SIXTO · May 26th, 2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

true, but NATO holds us to it.

Baby Hulk · May 26th, 2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randytulsa2

They want deadlier weapons and we should see to it that they get them. Period. I agree about the hollow points for the pistols. I'd also say soft-points for the rifles.

You want the dudes you're shooting at to S-T-O-P, with extreme prejduice. War isn't a game. It also calls for unrestrained use of brutality and force. Period.

BTW, until we are willing to do what is NECESSARY to win, we'll lose....DO IT RIGHT. It'll get over with faster, and with less loss of life.

Give our troops the tools needed and ALLOW them to use 'em!

rodc13 · May 26th, 2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

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

+1 on the 60!

sgtD · May 26th, 2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randytulsa2

They want deadlier weapons and we should see to it that they get them. Period.

You want the dudes you're shooting at to S-T-O-P, with extreme prejduice. War isn't a game. It also calls for unrestrained use of brutality and force. Period. It is, as Billy Sherman (not a favorite of mine, as I consider myself something of a son of the South) put it, "cruelty....it cannot be refined".

BTW, until we are willing to do what is NECESSARY to win, we'll lose.... I have an old Von Clausewitz text that says it well: "If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand."

That point was eloquently illustrated in "Apocolypse Now", in the scene where Sheen hear Brando tell about the VC amuptating the arms of children vaccinated by the Americans.

Brando talks about the pure "crystalline" evil exhibited by such acts, then refers to it as genius- - and observes, quite correctly, that the U.S. was just not committed enough to defeat enemies who were willing to do such things.

...

I was against the war (our squeamishness about doing what is necessary was one reason), and I still am, but if you're gonna do it, DO IT RIGHT. It'll get over with faster, and with less loss of life.

But we won't.

They should post that as a sticky!

Well said and painfully true.

sgtD · May 26th, 2007, 06:55 PM

As far as the waepons go, we should definately have never gotten away from the .45.

Also, I know there are some fans of the SAW (m249), but the ones I had dealings with were jam-o-matics. I much preferred the M-60, even though it was hard to hump.

canon6 · May 26th, 2007, 08:11 PM

I am not denying the truthfulness of the soldiers questioned,but they want a 3watt phase rifle and a light saber, or at leas ta phaser,I know I did when I was in combat Doug

teknoid · May 26th, 2007, 10:38 PM

I don't like 9mm ball for defense. Period. If we can't use hp's, we need to at least provide something that makes bigger holes in the target. As much as polymer has evolved, a lighter .45 with higher capacity than the 1911 should be a no-brainer. Making it easier to maintain would also be simpler. Don't know about a return to the M60, though. That sucker is a load. There still has to be a better alternative to what is provided now. Probably several.

rhinokrk · May 27th, 2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colin

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

Amen.

Schwebel · May 27th, 2007, 08:57 AM

Ball ammo in a 9mm for combat is just plain stupid #1, I wouldn't carry it in my gun for SD, so why should our troops have to. I do think it is time for a new rifle platform. With the advances in low-recoil weapon tech, a larger round should be used. I bet ya in WW2, no one complained about the stopping power of a 30-06, 303brit, 8mm, or a 7.62x54r.

Colin · May 27th, 2007, 08:52 PM

.357Sig for the pistol (Will do better against body armour)

6.8mm for the rifle

7.62 for the MG

May 26th, 2007, 06:55 PM	#25
sgtD Distinguished Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Kansas Posts: 1,652	As far as the waepons go, we should definately have never gotten away from the .45. Also, I know there are some fans of the SAW (m249), but the ones I had dealings with were jam-o-matics. I much preferred the M-60, even though it was hard to hump. __________________ When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow. Semper Fi.

May 26th, 2007, 08:11 PM	#26
canon6 New Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Kennewick Wa Posts: 11	I am not denying the truthfulness of the soldiers questioned,but they want a 3watt phase rifle and a light saber, or at leas ta phaser,I know I did when I was in combat Doug __________________ a armed man is his own master

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 26th, 2007, 10:38 PM	#27
teknoid Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lower Slobovia Posts: 227	I don't like 9mm ball for defense. Period. If we can't use hp's, we need to at least provide something that makes bigger holes in the target. As much as polymer has evolved, a lighter .45 with higher capacity than the 1911 should be a no-brainer. Making it easier to maintain would also be simpler. Don't know about a return to the M60, though. That sucker is a load. There still has to be a better alternative to what is provided now. Probably several.

May 27th, 2007, 08:57 AM	#29
Schwebel Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 416	Ball ammo in a 9mm for combat is just plain stupid #1, I wouldn't carry it in my gun for SD, so why should our troops have to. I do think it is time for a new rifle platform. With the advances in low-recoil weapon tech, a larger round should be used. I bet ya in WW2, no one complained about the stopping power of a 30-06, 303brit, 8mm, or a 7.62x54r.

May 27th, 2007, 08:52 PM	#30
Colin Distinguished Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,365	.357Sig for the pistol (Will do better against body armour) 6.8mm for the rifle 7.62 for the MG