We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:29:54 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war. Such was the headline that caught my attention over the weekend. The article discussses the drawbacks to the M855 round for the M16/M4, which was designed (shudder, oh no!) for killing the masses of Cylons, er, body-armored Warsaw Pact troops back in the day. And clearly, it isn't suited for modern conditions. The AP conducted some interviews and says so. You can read it right here. 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... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html Thu, 29 May 2008 10:44:49 -0600 Well, there's always Rule #2, right John? Heh heh heh... (and, yes, I know what Rule #2 says) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73671 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73671 Sat, 31 May 2008 00:12:16 -0600 Eh? Aside from Rule #1, where I'm always right, whattaya mean? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73638 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73638 Fri, 30 May 2008 10:56:08 -0600 All of those things have to be balanced or renegotiated, and it doesn't matter what you do - someone is going to hate you and call you a heartless bastard who doesn't care for the soldiers and is willing to get them killed for your convenience. Well, when I say this, though more obfuscatedly and much looooonger, you say it's arbitrary(digs a hole real fast and slips away).]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73613 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73613 Fri, 30 May 2008 08:18:55 -0600 The Jungle. And a third of the serious gun mags will agree, a third will praise the decision, and a third will publish recipes for handloading the cartridge to make it better. And depending on how you stake your territory, they'll all be correct. Unlike personally owned weapons, where you can fit and fiddle with myriad choices to find the rifle/cartridge combination that fits your needs, the military rifle has to make a lot of compromises regarding cost, complexity, maintainability, durability, ease of use, and lethality - and has to work for a broad segment of dis-similar people. We're never going to be at a point where everybody is happy. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73610 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73610 Fri, 30 May 2008 07:21:30 -0600 Yeah, I know. But if the point is stopping power(meaning, how much it hurts the target, lots of tissue damage) without wory of secondaries, frangible makes sense(it sticks in the walls and the people). Though, sometimes you want it to penetrate the wall so it isn't a perfect fix either. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73606 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73606 Fri, 30 May 2008 07:07:47 -0600 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." There's lots of emotion in the discussion. And JTG, if I'm going to have to have an integral-magazine rifle, I'll take a Garand, which I at least don't have to load one round at a time.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73604 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73604 Fri, 30 May 2008 06:49:56 -0600 Frangible vs. ball, anyone? no? Okay. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73602 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73602 Fri, 30 May 2008 06:18:19 -0600 John, Have to agree with you on the M1A and the SOCOM. Originally got the SOCOM II with the rails. Bad, bad, bad. Traded it off to a friend for a SOCOM 16, one rail to hold my Trijicon Tripower. Much better. I guess I'm old fashioned and can't see the need for all of the rails. That being said, my favorite rifle is still the Garand. I got a Springfield Armory one in .308 to match the M1A's that I have. You have to go along way to beat the old Garand for shooting fun. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73600 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73600 Fri, 30 May 2008 05:53:55 -0600 Square bullets anyone? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73598 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73598 Fri, 30 May 2008 05:23:05 -0600 I hate to seem to be an obsessive 7 millimeter crank, here, but yes I am one, so what can I say? The M-14 has that awkward magazine sticking out of the bottom. Now, the Krag had a magazine you could top up from the bottom; FIFO. And it didn't stick out anywhere. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73595 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73595 Thu, 29 May 2008 23:53:09 -0600 I agree Bill. The 5.56 is a joke. Tell me is it legal to hunt deer in Kansas with a 5.56? Why isn't it? Why is it we have to double tap? Why is it that we don't have a cartridge that turns an enemy inside out with one hit? Size matters? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73594 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73594 Thu, 29 May 2008 22:22:50 -0600 Two questions, Cowboy - 1. Why does Springfield have your rifle? 2. In my world, if you're in a shooting war, and you have to reload, you, um, well duck behind something, or at least reload by feel while keeping an eye on the target... 3. Okay, three - and you can answer this in email - what'd ya pay for it? I've been *tempted*... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73587 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73587 Thu, 29 May 2008 18:29:11 -0600 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bBsodpPsDY It's very handy in tight spaces and the compensator/ brake is awesome. Kicks up a lot of dust if you're shooting it over an old car roof, though. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73586 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73586 Thu, 29 May 2008 17:29:14 -0600 I know tales of hits-without-success are sexier, but that's probably because they're rarer. We had a big "iron sheik" type with an AK play suicide-by-soldier with us in Baghdad in 2003. A controlled-pair later, one "underpowered" 5.56 to the sternum and he looked like he got hit by a truck. Something about bone/bullet contact. Ok, it was a vital area, but right there I decided not to entertain complaints about effectiveness. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73573 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73573 Thu, 29 May 2008 15:34:53 -0600 Greetings: Back in my infantry days, our basic load was 22 20-round magazines, one in the weapon and 3 bandoliers of 7. I used to hump and extra bandolier, 29 magazines all told. One of the advantages we had was that the bad guys never seemed to have more than seven of their 30-round magazines. When you're wandering around waiting to get jumped on (technically a reconnaissance-in-force) it's nice to know you can out shoot the bad guys until help arrives. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73571 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73571 Thu, 29 May 2008 15:25:06 -0600 Anyway, if you are concerned about going through a doorway with big bullets, what's wrong with the M3 grease gun? No place to mount a front handgrip, a laser-pointer, a 3x low-light combat scope, mag pouches and a xenon flashlight. And don't forget, the USMC version will call for a bayonet stud, too...]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73570 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73570 Thu, 29 May 2008 15:23:04 -0600 Someone out there (SOCOM?) is fooling around with a solid copper 70 grain bullet for 5.56 rounds. That sounds like it would have the ballistics of a knitting needle. Anyway, if you are concerned about going through a doorway with big bullets, what's wrong with the M3 grease gun? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73564 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73564 Thu, 29 May 2008 12:55:11 -0600 Yes and isn't there the whole issue of NATO rounds being the same for supply and logistics? and, I think I recall an issue about the big rounds stopping the bad guy and then coming out the other side to stop some other poor slob standing near by. Just two othe issues I don't see raised. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73561 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2008/05/on_bullets.html#comment-73561 Thu, 29 May 2008 12:42:36 -0600