November 17, 2005
Clarke Feared bin Laden-Iraq Connection (Images/Evidence)
So, Richard Clarke believed that not only was there a connection between bin Laden and Iraq prior to 9/11, but also that those ties were so strong that he fretted over bin Laden finding safe-haven under the Saddam Hussein regime should he escape Afganistan? I really didn't believe it when I first saw this from Bryan blogging over at Michelle Malkin's place. Looks like Glenn was surprised, too.
Surely, I said to myself, this report must be exaggerating.
There's probably a good reason no MSM publication has mentioned the fact, right?
So I whipped out my copy of the 9/11 report only to find that Richard Clarke indeed is full of shit when he talks about the President misleading us into war. If Bush misled us into war, then Clarke is equally guilty of that sin (as are a majority of Democrats in Congress).
Here is a captured image from the original report. Click for larger view.
This is the same Richard Clarke who wrote in a book alleging the Bush Administration misled the American people into thinking there was an al Qaeda-Iraq connection that:
"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."Ah, the hypocrisy of it all......
And, just so you know, President Bush isn't the only person in White House circles with a spelling problem. Click for larger view.
Richard Clarke, genius or scorned politician trying to shift blame?
Posted by: Rusty at
04:50 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Isn't fleeing to iraq exactly what Zarkowi did? ?
However his name is spelled ....
Posted by: jeff at November 17, 2005 05:55 PM (FnFg4)
2
Wasn't Clarke the Clinton terrorism czar? I'll never forget the first mention I ever saw of the proposal to create the position - a note in Men's Health predicted that if the terrorism czar was as successful as the drug czar, we'd soon have Hammas shooting at our asses from inside our toilets.
At least he met somebody's expectations.
Posted by: DonutBoy at November 17, 2005 07:00 PM (q33bN)
3
Well, there you go- Richard Clarke knew this but the Senate could never find any proven link from Saddam to al Qaeda.
What ever will we do with these false Senate reports anyway?
When Bush II was elected , all that I heard was how bad he was at everything and how Bush II adminsitration would be better. Now that there is trouble, all I hear is how Bush II cannot be wrong because Clinton believed the same thing.
Shame on everyone for thinking that after 5 years all of the problems are due to the previous administration.
Posted by: Dale at November 17, 2005 08:55 PM (ddNff)
4
All the problems are due to decades of neglect and at times even complicity, whether knowingly or not. By saying that anyone is shameful for pointing to any previous administration is to admit openly that they are too ready to dismiss past failings. AQ didn't decide on January 20th, 2001 to become a problem.
Posted by: Oyster at November 18, 2005 08:15 AM (YudAC)
5
Actually Clark has some credibility. In Ghost Wars, Steve Coll offers evidence of the fact that he was one of the very, very few people of the Bubba-Hitler administration who actually regarded terrorism as a serious threat and tried to do something about it. When he testified before Congress to get money for counterterrorism, they treated him as if he were trying to scam them out of some unaccountable money, because of the "black bag" nature of many of the operations; he told them that he wished he could come back before them in a few years and admit it had all been a waste of money, and that there had been no actual threat, but that he was afraid that was not going to be the case.
He was known to be fairly unpartisan and a bureaucratic survivor above all, but when faced with the choice of laying the blame where it belonged, or at the feet of a hated Republican, he took the low road. But, eventually, everything comes out in the wash, and people like him will have to slither forward and admit, grudgingly and haltinlgy, that in fact, Bush is not directly and solely responsible for everything from the Civil War to 9/11. When one must swallow their own words, I doubt if seditious speech tastes as good going in as it did coming out. I hope they choke on it.
As I've said before; the only good thing about the possibly collapse of society is that we will be free to round up people like this and burn them alive for betraying us.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 09:46 AM (0yYS2)
6
My only intent was to point out that blaming a person in a previous administration when taking office and then using them as a shield five years later is ironic.
There is plenty of criticism for anyone who takes action (whether or not they are Republican or Democratic or Independent). It is the person who causes change that is attacked, vilified, and hated.
We all must be brought kicking and screaming into a new future whatever it is.
Posted by: Dale at November 19, 2005 05:57 AM (ddNff)
7
Just so you understand that the shame is in those who continually blame it all on this administration. This forces others to bring up past administrations and policies which led up to it. And then they are accused of "passing the buck" when all they're doing is pointing out the fallacies in their argument.
Yes, their are a few who have used it as a "shield". But they are few. There are multitudes more on the other side of the fence.
They're just upset because this administration upset the status quo (an imaginary peace) and forced everyone to lay their cards on the table. This war was inevitable. It was only a matter of time and place.
Posted by: Oyster's Doppelganger at November 19, 2005 08:31 AM (YudAC)
Vapid Points Memo
I don't often read Josh Marshall, but he had a reputation for being a reasonably objective lefty (was willing to point out that the Rathergate memos were, well... not really evidence of anything negative about GWB) so I decided to see what he has to say about the Democrats' "that bad man tricked us, mommy" meme. Alas, there isn't even a mustard seed of objectivity now. To whit:
There's one point that's important to remember about the White House's pushback to cover up its collective dishonesty about Iraq. We've noted before that in scandals or political nominations the decisive issue is not the number of opponents, the intensity of their opposition or even the quality of their arguments. The decisive issue is most often whether the scandalee or the nominee has some committed base of support, even if it only amounts to a distinct minority.
So, if you were thinking some semblance of objective truth has any relevance, well just grow the heck up you impossible romantic. Because even though Joe Wilson's CIA debrief said the opposite of his NYT piece, we know what he meant, right? Because within the boundaries of the hermeneutic circle the phrase "the Iraqis were seeking uranium in Niger" means the same as "the Iraqis were not seeking uranium in Niger." Nobody's counting anyway. Do you see anybody counting? I don't see anybody counting. Relatively speaking...
A parallel dynamic is in play with respect to what the White House is trying to accomplish with this current pushback.
Isn't this a misuse of the term "parallel?" I mean, isn't he saying that the decisive issue is whether or not Bush has a committed base of support? Which, strictly speaking, would be the same, rather than a parallel dynamic... right? But maybe he means something else?
Posted by: Demosophist at
11:23 AM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Just for the record I should probably point out that Joe Wilson's two testimonies weren't precisely oppositional. In his CIA debrief he offered evidence that tended to support the case that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger, without a conclusion that they were doing so. This makes his conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium in Niger, in his NYT editorial, incongruous at best. See, I didn't even say he was a liar. He just made up the truth, is all.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 17, 2005 12:02 PM (DHg+k)
2
Since the contradictions and changing positions of the lib/left are so obvious - it has to be for some other reason or ulterior motive or goal. They are many things but stupid isn't one of them (lets be honest here - the word is thrown out far to often).
Outside the US the driving force is anti-Americanism .. the issue itself doesn't matter.
In the US the driving force is the Culture War - Iraq is just a prop to them to rally around and use while other unspoken domestic cultural issues simmer below the surface.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 12:49 PM (Jvmry)
3
Since the contradictions and changing positions of the lib/left are so obvious - it has to be for some other reason or ulterior motive or goal.
Lust for power.
Hatred for their opponents to the point of dementia.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 17, 2005 01:28 PM (n5eDP)
4
Barone and McCain have it right: people, including Marshall, who say the President lied are liars.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at November 17, 2005 04:48 PM (S1ka/)
5
Circular logic is a fundamental tenet of leftism.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 05:05 PM (YudAC)
6
I've just finished reading the link you provided to ProteinWisdom. Excellent material there. What I find so interesting is that The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee, The Butler Report and the Robb-Silberman Commission all came to the conclusion that there was no coercion, influence or pressure to change the intelligence. Yet ... the opposition here (and abroad) are overtly displaying coercion, influence and pressure to change that conclusion.
It's not unlike the "keep counting the votes until we win" strategy.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 05:38 PM (YudAC)
7
Oyster:
What I find so interesting is that The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee, The Butler Report and the Robb-Silberman Commission all came to the conclusion that there was no coercion, influence or pressure to change the intelligence.
Oyster, SSC & R-S were precluded by their terms of reference from reaching the conclusions you say they reached. You read "we sought no evidence" and "we saw no evidence" as "there was no evidence". You read denials that evidenced was changed as denials that evidence was pressured, slanted, cherry-picked and stove-piped. You are GOP-deluded and/or self-deluded.
Posted by: AlanDownunder at November 17, 2005 06:11 PM (VXfDQ)
8
Why would the administration lie about evidence so they could get in a war where they knew the subsequent intel would prove embara$$ing?
Seriously, I don't even think democrats are that retarded...well maybe.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2005 07:38 PM (Id2gd)
9
purple
Try this one - there were no terrorists in Iraq but since the US invasion it has become a haven for terrorists and now detracts us from the war on terrorism.
I can't figure it out.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 10:08 PM (Jvmry)
10
Oyster, SSC & R-S were precluded by their terms of reference from reaching the conclusions you say they reached. You read "we sought no evidence" and "we saw no evidence" as "there was no evidence". Blah, blah, blah, etc.
????
Oyster's statement was a synopsis of several conclusions, among which were:
SSC: “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. [And yes, that does mean they were looking for evidence. Otherwise there'd have been no point in making the statement.] Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, p. 284-285)
R-S: “No Evidence Of Political Pressure.” “These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.”
These two conclusions were about "pressure and influence," but absent that I just don't see how there's even the ghost of a case that the Bush Administration coerced anything, or deliberately misled anyone. If youd don't think so, look up the term "coerced" in your handy Webster's. Moreover, there's just no evidence presented that the commissions cited were precluded from reaching conclusions relevant to the bogus indictments of the NYT.
So your post was just smoke, and what it reflects about you and your cause is that you have inordinate faith in sophistry and deconstructionist hermeneutics, and precious little faith in plain auld sense and good auld honesty. Or to put it another way (using Penn and Teller's apt phraseology): BS.
Believe it or not, when you "ain't got nuthin'" you're way better off to just admit it and move on. Otherwise people have only two options to choose from: 1 You're crazy; or 2 you're unprincipled. Or both.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 18, 2005 12:32 AM (0fhcJ)
11
Wilson's report to the CIA was supposed to suggest that Saddam was _shopping_ for yellowcake.
I understand that Wilson's NYT article said Saddam had not _purchased_ yellowcake.
Both statements could be true, if my understanding of what they were is correct.
Posted by: Phillep at November 18, 2005 09:30 AM (TN/ft)
12
You know, Phillep, I got the same impression. Wilson was careful to be as dishonest as he could without outright fabrication in order to push an agenda forward. And he knew there would be enough people out there that wanted so badly to believe that, they wouldn't even catch it.
Remember, Joe Wilson was a diplomat. Someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip. Deception and manipulation is their business.
Posted by: Oyster at November 18, 2005 10:17 AM (YudAC)
13
Quothe Oyster: "Circular logic is a fundamental tenet of leftism."
Not just leftism, but any ideology which is not supportable by hard, cold reality. Circular logic is nothing but a series of logical leaps, forward, backward, and sideways, which dodge facts that refute or do not support the "truth", i.e. a predetermined conclusion, and seek out any scraps and bits of potential supporting evidence, no matter how specious, even if they have to be made up out of whole cloth.
Take religion for example; without circular logic religion couldn't exist, because religion relies up faith, not facts, and faith is nothing more than a belief held in absence of, or contrary to, the known facts. But because we are rational creatures, (and I use the term very loosely when speaking of the whole of humanity), we can't look reality and logic in the eye without blinking, so we have to make up an alternate reality, supported by an alternate logic, so that we can keep our faith and not go insane, though this clearly does't work very well, as is demonstrated by the fact that the most insane people in our society are otherwise completely sane and reasonable, but are driven mad by an ideology that is incompatible with reality, and so engage in behavior that is destructive to themselves and others.
Leftist political ideology is no different from religion in that it is full of non-sequiturs which require great leaps of faith in order for our logical brains to accept them. We have evolved the ability to ingore or even refute facts, so that we may believe what we want, and this is a guaranteed formula for trouble. Circular logic, and any ideology that requires its support, is instrinsically false, and cannot be made otherwise.
Now for the disclaimer: I'm not saying that all religions are as kooky as communism or islam, the former being as much a religion as the latter, but that they have certain things in common. A man once tried to convince me that he, though not himself in possession of the keys to heaven, knew where they lay. I, having long ago abandoned all matters of religion and faith, politely declined to drink his Kool-Aid, having tasted it before and found it sweet at first blush, but then bitter and potentially fatal if swallowed. He then said the most astonishing thing; he asked me if I had read the Classics much, which I had, and he told me that my trouble was that I was a Greek thinker, i.e. a linear thinker, and that I would have to learn to think circuitously in order to be able to regain my faith. Such honesty was shocking from someone who clearly wanted me to abandon honest reason and fact-based logic, and it was then that I felt fully justified in my rejection of faith.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 10:26 AM (0yYS2)
14
Maxie
There is no God but Alphafa and Buckweat is his prophet -
can I get an OTAY!
Before I can accept you as a true non-believer you must first drink from the cup of Ayn Rand.
Posted by: hondo at November 18, 2005 12:50 PM (Jvmry)
15
OTAY!!
Posted by: Oyster's Doppelganger at November 18, 2005 01:02 PM (YudAC)
16
I drank from Ayn Rand's cup one time, and the taste was bitter. I spit it out, unlike Plato.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 18, 2005 01:45 PM (rUyw4)
17
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
--Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman
Posted by: Jeff G. at November 19, 2005 12:49 PM (1MHqI)
18
Jeff:
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
That's what I thought.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 20, 2005 01:21 AM (pD/kV)
Leader of Seattle Mosque Arrested, Muslims *Shocked*
The leader of a Seattle mosque was arrested on Nov. 15th as he got off an airplane by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Number of articles appearing in the US media about this? One.
The leader of a Seattle mosque was arrested on Nov. 15th as he got off an airplane by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Number of articles appearing in the US media about this? One.
Have imams being arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force become so commonplace that it is no longer 'news', or is the lack of MSM coverage more evidence that the MSM doesn't want you to associate terrorism with Islam? Hmmm, I wonder if a Christian pastor had been arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force would the media reaction be any different?
Notice this Seattle Post Intelligencer piece makes sure to qualify Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed's name by noting that he is a 'respected leader':
The respected leader of a Rainier Valley mosque was arrested Monday on an immigration charge, surprising those who knew his work in Seattle's Somali community.Trust me on this one: 'Immigration charges' + 'Joint Terrorism Task Force' = 'I lied on my Visa application about not being a member of al Qaeda'
Federal agents with the Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed at Sea-Tac Airport as he got off a domestic flight, federal criminal justice sources said....As if lying about being a terrorist on your Visa application is just some minor infracton.While he is being held only on the immigration violations, the Joint Terrorism Task Force is continuing its investigation, a source said.
Mohamed, a native of Somalia, has led prayers as the imam of Abu-Bakr Mosque for the past five years.Have I mentioned lately where I believe Osama bin Laden to be hiding out? No. Well it aint in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Wrong continent. Try a continent that starts and ends with "A". No, not Antarctica, guess again. And if I were to hazard a guess (and this is an educated guess based on evidence) as to exactly where on that continent Osama bin Laden was hiding out I would begin with the place where bin Laden first attacked the U.S....
"I know the man. I'm shocked to hear that (he was arrested), if he's the one I have in mind," said Hisham Farajallah, president of the Islamic Center of Washington.I hear the Taliban also could solve 99% of familial problems within minutes.Several Somali immigrants expressed surprise Tuesday after hearing of Mohamed's arrest, saying the imam was well regarded in the community for his counsel on a wide range of family issues.
"He is a leader for all the Somali community, not just for the mosque," Hassan Nur said as he arrived at the mosque for midafternoon prayer.
Nur and a man named Ali said that Mohamed would solve "99 percent" of the problems brought to him, helping people with questions related to marriage, parenting, addictions and youths.
They said Mohamed even started a summer program at the mosque to keep youths off the street and out of trouble.Again, as if fascists of all stripes aren't social reformers. They are. You know, solve our ills by forcing us to follow Allah.
"I've never heard of him doing anything wrong," Nur said.I wonder if Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed's 'wisdom' and service to his community included advising his friends and neighbors to follow the the Somali Islamic tradition of female genital mutilation?Mohamed is "a wise man in every aspect," said Mohamed Abdi, president of Somali Community Services of Seattle.
Mohamed has been the only imam at the mosque, which started six years ago without a prayer leader.In addition to the single mention of Abu Abrahim Sheik Mohamed's arrest in the U.S. press, the Iranians give the story a little ink. Iranian Quran News Agency's story is actually just a reprint of the SPI article, but it is interesting that the Iranians would give this some space but not, say, CNN.Though open to Muslims of all national origins, the mosque is used mostly by Somalis.
In November 2004, the Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested 14 people at about a dozen Seattle-area locations, including a business one block from the original location of Abu-Bakr Mosque.
Among those arrested in the November 2004 raids was Karim Abdullah Assalaam, who told an FBI informant that "his whole Muslim crew" is involved in an ongoing bank fraud scheme for personal gain and because "you can't go to war broke," court documents say.
In a tape-recorded conversation about guns, Assalaam told the informant, "I just want to die a Shaheed," which he defined as a martyr "who dies in the cause of Allah."
Assalaam is to be sentenced next month after acceding to a federal plea agreement.
Posted by: Rusty at
11:04 AM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 775 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I am shocked at this news sir, shocked I tell you!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 12:34 PM (0yYS2)
2
Muslim countries - a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there ... seems like the typical unspoken attitude of muslims living in the West and US. I swear - these people got some serious psychological problems!
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 12:59 PM (Jvmry)
3
I can't believe such a structure stands in the middle of Seattle. These people are like rats...they infest everywhere.
Posted by: Jester at November 17, 2005 01:22 PM (BypR5)
4
Soon to follow will be the community's fear of a backlash (which never seems to come). Would-be-terrorists in their neighbourhoods they can handle, critisism and hard questions they mostly certainly cannot.
Posted by: Graeme at November 17, 2005 01:23 PM (1t7Hl)
5
...next thing my US buddies will be telling me they have mosques in Texas ;-0
Posted by: Jester at November 17, 2005 01:26 PM (BypR5)
6
Fox now has this up and Yahoo as well. The rest nada so far. Better late than never.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175864,00.html
Posted by: Howie at November 17, 2005 02:12 PM (D3+20)
7
Wrong forking thread howie
Posted by: Howie at November 17, 2005 02:14 PM (D3+20)
8
here is a link to the local paper's story on the arrest of the 14 I am mentioning the part about the "blonde suppermodels" in the hope that someone will take the time to read the article. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002095360_raids19m.html Also a link from Syracuse University showing the average sentences given by federal judges in cases involving both domestic and international terrorism http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/supp.html The second link is by far the more frightening, but has no "supermodel" content
Posted by: john Ryan at November 17, 2005 03:00 PM (ads7K)
9
Just an FYI....
Tyler Texas has a mosque. Granted it is small, but it is a mmosque.
Sad thing is nobody seems to care who killed 300 civilians for what religion.....
According to the Democrats anmd the ACLU:
Muslim equals peaceful innocent. Christian equals hateful racisist homophobe.
SOMEDAY, these things will be righted....until then, load the guns people. I defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic!
Tex
Posted by: Texas Marksman at November 17, 2005 03:22 PM (dyUaJ)
10
Sorry, meant to say 3000 civilians....
Posted by: Texas Marksman at November 17, 2005 03:24 PM (dyUaJ)
11
That Mosque where Dennis the K is pictured is pretty close to where I work.
I had no idea DK was a speaker of visitor there. I wonder how his vigen, pro abortion, gay rights platform went over at the Northgate Mosque. So what is the attraction between the far left and Islam? IÂ’d have thrown tomatoes at him if he had come to my Parish.
The Mosque in the article is actually in the south end of Seattle in the Rainier Valley (The Hood).
IÂ’m glad the Feds are on this one as the local pols and the local media would treat treason as a problem of society and blame us the locals for our small minds.
Anything anti Bush in Seattle is OK up to and including treason.
ItÂ’s that bad here.
Posted by: Brad at November 17, 2005 10:59 PM (6mUkl)
12
Question? Why do we have somali immigrants in Seattle or anywhere else in America. Does Seattle need more traffic jams? What does a muslim african add to this society? What benefit does America get from bringing them here? That is the stupid part of this entire immigrant program. Just what Seattle needs more black muslims. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Need an example? It's called France. And don't tell me we need the labor. We have 30 million Christian Mexicans begging to get in.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2005 05:25 AM (ZaAd/)
13
Actually I believe a riot and car burnings by muslims in Seattle would be a good thing. Wake Seattle up? Naw!
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2005 05:32 AM (ZaAd/)
14
Rooster, It’s kind of funny, but that Mosque is surrounded by taxicabs when they gather for their services. Every cab driver in this city is a “Skinny” kind of guy. I drive by and yell “get to work” damn things are parked everywhere around here. Who ever was driving cabs before lost their jobs to these guys.
Muslim riots in Seattle? Remember WTO?
If the 2-5% of the Islamic population rioted in Seattle the libs up here would fold in a week. Once the PI ran a photo of a car burning, Starbucks trashing, illegal immigrant from somewhere sandy getting his head beat in by the Seattle PD, the city would sign surrender papers the next day.
Now, Eastern Washington where my dad and father in law live, thatÂ’s a different story. I can see my father in law picking them off like Davy Crocket at the Alamo defending his riverfront cabin.
Metro Seattle is blue as blue can be. Eastern Washington is Red as red can be. That says it all.
Posted by: Brad at November 18, 2005 08:34 AM (6mUkl)
15
Brad,
Missed ya man. Where have you been and what have you been up to? In any event, welcome back. And if you've been here and I missed your comment, well, promise not to sue me.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 18, 2005 02:12 PM (rUyw4)
16
Joe, IÂ’ve been pretty busy. My oldest daughter started at Catholic high school this fall and the $850 tuition hit me a little harder than expected. I started working a 2nd job putting in sport courts and sidewalks part time with a couple of friends who are firefighters (man those guys only have to work about 6 days a month). ItÂ’s getting pretty cold and wet now, so we will be putting the concrete biz on the shelf until spring. I checked in here and saw the post and recognized the mosque right away.
I would never sue anyone; my dad is a retired MD and trained me early on to hate lawyers.
Posted by: Brad at November 18, 2005 02:29 PM (3OPZt)
17
Your dad taught you well, Brad. Good to have you back.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 18, 2005 11:25 PM (rUyw4)
18
This COMMENT section is just full of craps..why are you guys Insulting Somalians when you're topic has nothing to do with immigrants or somalians ?...
you are all RACIST!!! for talking Nagitively about somalians!!!! and that's NOT right..
Posted by: Aliyah at February 10, 2006 08:12 PM (CqPDK)
19
This COMMENT section is just full of craps..why are you guys Insulting Somalians when you're topic has nothing to do with immigrants or somalians ?...
you are all RACIST!!! for talking Nagitively about somalians!!!! and that's NOT right..
Posted by: Aliyah at February 10, 2006 08:15 PM (CqPDK)
20
i feel sorry for some people who were commenting about why muslims are every where or that they would never bother to live in muslim countryies...
well, to all of you who can't STAND muslims, Muslims are everywhere on the globe, and they are going to increase each day, NOBODY will stop them except the Almighty GOD... and hey i have good news for you al, if are searching for a place where MUSLIMS won't be found, try going to HELL, i guarentee you won't be finding MUSLIMS in hell, that's for SURE...!!1
if disagree let me know
Aliyah206@yahoo.com
Posted by: Aliyah at February 10, 2006 08:32 PM (CqPDK)
21
400 years of occupation, 100's millions dead, 100's millions suffering, the rich got richer the poor got deader, more to follow ... the endless cycle. jesus is not our leader, obviously its the devil that you love, youve just got a full ride to hell univeristy, your infinite lesson in eternal damnation. bring your 666 SPF lil piggies.
Posted by: yankgohome at February 13, 2006 11:01 PM (1ruAY)
22
I think you all are really freaky ass racist people I am muslim and Guess what also american. The word muslim means submission to god and guess what you all are doing submiting to the devil so why don't you include all the muslims in your next SAYONCE or whatever you all do and guess what we'll all be waiting for you to come and "PICK US OFF". Or at least i'll be waiting why dont you try going to where your fellow christians are and try talking all that jabba jabba I got two words for all you red necks YEAH RIGHT! And for all of you trailer park goers ease up off the Meth and Coor's your all starting to look like some Zombies.
Posted by: marissa at February 26, 2006 07:22 PM (s/EHx)
Jihadis Target Australia in Video Message
(Jawa, Indondesia) A new video from Jemaah Islamiah. al Qaeda's Southeast Asia counterpart, warns Australia to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq or faced renewed acts of terrorism. The video was found ten days ago in a cave on the Island of Jawa (Java in English) after a top Jemaah Islamiah was killed there. The man on the video (shown right) is believed to be Malaysian national Noordin Top, a senior operative of Jemaah Islamiah.
(Jawa, Indondesia) A new video from Jemaah Islamiah. al Qaeda's Southeast Asia counterpart, warns Australia to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq or faced renewed acts of terrorism. The video was found ten days ago in a cave on the Island of Jawa (Java in English) after a top Jemaah Islamiah was killed there. The man on the video (shown right) is believed to be Malaysian national Noordin Top, a senior operative of Jemaah Islamiah.
Jawas on Jawa? Indeed.
SOUTH-EAST Asia's most wanted terrorist has warned in a video message seized by Indonesian police that Australia will be the prime target of new "intimidation and terror" attacks while its troops remain in Iraq.In an apparent copy of al-Qaeda tactics, the video features a masked man believed to be Jemaah Islamiah mastermind Noordin Top urging strikes against Australia and claiming Prime Minister John Howard is leading the nation into tragedy.
The video threat, a first for Jemaah Islamiah, was seized when police raided Noordin's Central Java hide-out 10 days ago, soon after his bomb-making partner, Azahari Husin, was shot dead. Farewell video messages from the three suicide bombers who struck Bali in October were also recovered.
Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla played the videos to Islamic leaders, saying police believed the man issuing the warning was Noordin.
"America, Australia, England and Italy are all our enemies," says the militant. "We especially remind Australia that you, Downer and Howard, are killing Australia, leading it into darkness and tragedy and into mujahideen terror.
"Know that as long as you continue to colonise the land of Iraq and Afghanistan and intimidate Muslims then you, too, will feel our intimidation and terror."
Posted by: Rusty at
08:32 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Interesting - found in a cave huh. Seems they're having some problems with their film distribution network.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 09:26 AM (Jvmry)
2
Spiderhole Productions, LLC ?
Posted by: Rusty at November 17, 2005 09:33 AM (JQjhA)
3
I guess Judaism has the Dead Sea Scrolls, Islam has the Java Terrorism DVDs.
What is it with terrorists and the 'pull my finger' routine?
Posted by: Graeme at November 17, 2005 09:41 AM (1t7Hl)
4
What is it with terrorists and the 'pull my finger' routine?
From what I've seen, it's a common mannerism of the imams. Since they're delivering a religious message, they do the same thing.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 17, 2005 10:24 AM (n5eDP)
5
I've been collecting pictures of murderous psychopaths and their sycophants, and it seems that finger-pointing is a common trait when they're ranting, regardless of ideology. The finger seems to me symbolic of a phallus/weapon, and thus regardless of what they're saying, their body language clearly communicates what they will do given the chance. This also partly explains why so many younger and older females, as well as Beta and Omega males flock to them, and why Alpha males react to them with derision.
Every dictator, or potenial dictator, from Bill Clinton, to Saddam Hussein, to Osama bin Laden, to Joseph Stalin, to Adolph Hitler, et al, fancies himself an Alpha male, but in reality, they are actually Betas and Omegas who have managed to figure out how to sucker enough people to believe in them, and always lead their followers to ruin. Such figures always depend on reliable, sycophantic toadies, who actually make everything run. Hitler had Goebbels, Himmler, and Eichman; Osama has Zawahiri, and Bill had Hillary, who wasn't really a toadie, but rather the true power behind the throne. Bill was her stooge, her public face, because she is not capable of appealing to the rabble like Bill does, mainly because she despises every person who isn't Hillary Clinton.
I could go on, but I have things to do, so more on this later...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 10:59 AM (0yYS2)
6
The finger-in-the-air thing is something George Galloway does as well.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 11:36 AM (YudAC)
7
I think that Robert Crawford's explanation applies to Galloway. He wants to be seen as Islam's greatest friend in the West, so whatever the imams and radicals do, he'll do as well. Heck if they started giving sermons with chickens on their heads, he'd do the same thing during his speeches.
Posted by: Graeme at November 17, 2005 12:25 PM (1t7Hl)
8
IM I noticed the finger pointing thing as well. It just makes me hate the little prick even more.
Posted by: Jester at November 17, 2005 02:05 PM (BypR5)
9
Think you guys are reading too much into the finger pointing thing - I mean, my mother was always doing it to me and she doesn't fit into Maxie's cast of characters. Maybe Mrs Attila the Hun - you guys are not gonna start bad-mouthing my momma now, are ya?
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 03:30 PM (Jvmry)
10
I'll tell ya, I'm more afraid of momma's pointing finger than any jihadi's. Hell, I'd guess even jihadi's are afraid of their momma's pointing.
All kidding aside, I think there really IS something to it.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 05:49 PM (YudAC)
11
Hondo, a good mother is no less a dictator than Hitler, though hopefully with better outome for the dictatees. Any family that tries to operate as a democracy produces goth kids and such.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 10:31 AM (0yYS2)
November 16, 2005
U.S. Retains Control of Internet Traffic
(Tunis, Tunisia) Some members of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society wanted to transfer control of Internet traffic from the United States to the United Nations. They failed.
From Reuters:
The United States will keep control of the domain-name system that guides online traffic under an agreement on Wednesday seen as a setback to efforts to internationalise one of the pillars of the Internet.This is good news. I foresee nothing but chaos if the UN or the EU were put in charge.Negotiators at the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society said they had agreed to set up a forum to discuss "spam" e-mail and other Internet issues and explore ways to narrow the technology gap between rich and poor countries.
But oversight of the domain-name system will remain with the United States, a setback for the European Union and other countries that had pushed for international control of one of the most important technical aspects of the Internet.
The European Union said in a statement that the agreement would lead to "further internationalisation of Internet governance, and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to this end."
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
11:54 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That would be fun with the Internet being down for weeks because some African warlord forgot to reset the servers.
Posted by: Tyler D. at November 17, 2005 03:17 AM (dd9FX)
2
De lions ghost! De lions! Tell us about the lions!
I know - has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic but ghost will be here soon with his willie pete in his hand and I wanted to greet him early. I have a busy day planned.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 05:08 AM (Jvmry)
3
Hondo: I thought we already beat the prick to the punch?
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:24 AM (ZaAd/)
4
Let me see. We invent the computers. We cause the internet. We get it started. And someone else wants to control it. Nothing ever changes.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:28 AM (ZaAd/)
5
If anyone's interested - ghost's man-behind-curtain heroic source of information and beliefs is a man named Kurt Nimmo based out of New Mexico.
uruknet is part of the radical fringe new-age western socialist/communist movement. net itself is heavily associated with remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime in exile (in Europe no less).
Kurt is a trip. He & they are all over the map with conspiracies and global issues. Take a peak - its kinda funny.
Oh - and they loathe libs too. It's really qiute funny.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 05:43 AM (Jvmry)
6
Today the Greyrooster and snooter will go to a certain city in La. and bitch slap the same raghead at the same convenience store as last year. We have been getting the same reports about him as last year.
Only reason we allow the worm to stay is that it's funny to watch his store. He has big signs on his gas pumps that say pay first. If you are white or asian you can pull up and the pump will be turned on. If you are black you must go inside and pay first. Racist? Or is he reacting to something in the past? Or is reacting to reality (driveoffs)? Or is this a fair muslim????? Since whites and asians have never left without paying why should they be punished for what members of another race do?
Maybe we won't bitch slap him today. Just a good talking to.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:52 AM (ZaAd/)
7
Oh happy day!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605N.shtml
Posted by: Keep Smiling at November 17, 2005 06:22 AM (CX9+v)
8
Thank goodness. The UN couldn't even oversee a few billion dollars meant to care for children and families in Iraq. Why would we give them control of half a trillion websites?
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 06:30 AM (YudAC)
9
Not really 'traffic' but the root name servers.
Posted by: actus at November 17, 2005 07:58 AM (Zi15r)
10
“Further internationalisation of internet governance, and enhanced intergovernmental cooperation to this end”
aka chaos of the highest order which the United States will be expected to fix at some point in the future.
Posted by: Graeme at November 17, 2005 08:14 AM (1t7Hl)
11
Graeme: yeah. And it'll be all our fault for not divining the future.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 08:25 AM (YudAC)
12
What actual use does the domain-name-control-thingamagic have? Stuff like "No, it can't be ihatej0000s.se unless it's a company in Sweden. We suggest ihatej0000s.com"?
Posted by: A Finn at November 17, 2005 10:37 AM (lGolT)
13
Thankfully, we get to avoid the Internet For Food scandal that was sure to follow.
Posted by: William Teach at November 17, 2005 10:44 AM (AkiXU)
14
Yes, yes, internet good, UN bad, but what about the use of white phosphorous in Falluja!?!?!?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 11:03 AM (0yYS2)
15
Wow. I've been reading Kurt Nimmo's excretions. Just, wow.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 12:37 PM (0yYS2)
16
You're right, IM. Nimmo's a maroon. Hey, greg, IM found a new hero for you.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 01:25 PM (YudAC)
17
We are the U.N. We are N.A.T.O. Well, at least we fund more than two thirds of it. If they try to take it than we should cut off U.N. funding. The U.N. will die the next day. If that is too much then give them the internet. It's old anyway. We will switch to IPv6. We will prevail, meanwhile the rest of the world doesn't have the work ethic to manage the damn thing. Either way we win.
Posted by: lonelysoul at November 17, 2005 06:45 PM (0ATFl)
18
Lonely, you fail to take into account the fact that they don't need to manage it, they can hire American educated IT professionals like construction foremen hire day laborers on the streets of LA. All modern dictatorships depend upon the free world for the tools and skills they need to survive.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 10:34 AM (0yYS2)
19
Raghead at the so called conveinence store, swears to Allah that he never said anything bad about Americans, Christians, Jews or Shites. "Everyone lies about me. I am good man, I works hard. I never short change people".
Next week we will return and talk to him again. This time we will hide a tape recorder in the chips next to the register and see what he says after we leave. Works every time. Play back is a riot. Sort of like letting the air out of a ballon.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2005 08:12 PM (ZaAd/)
Will Work For Crack Campaign
(Kelowna, British Columbia) There's a politician, Andrew Uitvlugt, running for the mayor's office in Kelowna who has proposed a very creative solution to the problem of litter.
From EdmontonSun.com:
Andrew Uitvlugt says crack cocaine could be used as a reward for drug-addicted homeless people to pick up garbage.You can see Uitvlugt's campaign video here."So what I propose to do is to possibly motivate people with drugs to do constructive work, like get them out there picking up garbage, and then we'll give them some crack," he says on the website www.okbc.tv in a wacky video campaign pitch.
"Now what'll happen here is, after they're done picking up their garbage, they're going to feel somewhat good, they're going to think to themselves, 'You know, I did a good job today.' And they're going to maybe need less crack."
Besides not having a clue on how to pronounce his name, I suspect that Uitvlugt hasn't considered that his proposal would likely result in an increase in garbage along with an increase in people desiring to pick up garbage.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
11:45 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We took down a somewhat longer transcript of his "new idea" at Independent Sources here. It includes "and hopefully after these people do that enough (pick up garbage and get free crack), their self esteem will get built up, and theyÂ’ll get so used to working doing constructive things that they will no longer need the crack."
He also has interesting ideas about the homeless.
I'm surprised he's not here in California!
Posted by: A Senior Administration Official at November 17, 2005 01:03 AM (AMhLC)
2
That is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 17, 2005 05:22 AM (CtVG6)
3
The Greyrooster will work for fine wine.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:30 AM (ZaAd/)
4
That guy can't be for real. Can he?
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 06:41 AM (YudAC)
5
Actually, in a perfect world it would be ingenious. Just think, the government could control drug production and distribution, and those who are inclined to become addicts could benefit from free drugs in exchange for productive labor. Give 'em a twenty rock or a snort of meth for every bag of garbage they pick up, and there wouldn't be a cigarette butt from Maine to California. They could be housed in the projects, transported to and from worksites by public transportation, and given food stamps to keep them alive, all in exchange for a quota of garbage. It's just like what we have now except that there is no benefit to the public, because everything else, other than government control of drugs, is in place.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 11:09 AM (0yYS2)
6
This is awesome!!! I'd like to see how many people participate to get the crack, then litter the empty vials and start the whole thing over again!!!
Posted by: Chilly Bastard at November 17, 2005 11:54 AM (T1wGj)
7
After watching the promo video I'm convinced that this guy would be the first in line to pick up garbage in exchange for crack. It'd be great because he'd never have to pay for it again...
One example of a budding Canadian politician. They're all liberal crack heads anyway.
Posted by: J at November 17, 2005 02:15 PM (/P1rH)
8
Crack viles. Go to the east side of Harlem Hospital in New York City. So many little glass viles they leave a crack, crack sound when you walk down the street. (As you rush to your car before being accosted by one of Al Sharpton's finest).
HEY!!!!!!! IS THAT WHY THEY CALL IT CRACK???????
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2005 05:42 AM (ZaAd/)
Reader Love Mail NYC Must Burn Edition
Read the love mail here.
ALL AMERICANS AND JEWISH C**TS MUST DIE.The Jew is a vile creature descended from monkeys and pigs.
Jerusalem will be muslim once again - or else New York will be burn again.
Oh wait is that a threat sure reads like one. I'm sure some of our NYC readers may take offense to that. He left us an email address.
ram1patel@hotmail.com
Posted by: Howie at
02:00 PM
| Comments (58)
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course he means that in an introspective, peaceful inner struggle sort of way.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:11 PM (0yYS2)
2
The towelhead may be right..If Condoleeza of Arabia keeps forcing Israel to give in more and more then eventually Jerusalem will be Muslim, and the United States will suffer serious consequences for killing off its only ally in a strategically vital part of the world.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at November 16, 2005 02:27 PM (gcLIV)
3
Hey Howie, do an IP lookup on that guy and tell us where he's from. My guess is India, since his surname is Patel.
One of the things I like most about the Jawa is how we succeed in peeving evil and deranged people from around the world and get them to totally lose their cool. which in this fellow's case probably isn't a challenge, but that's two minutes e-mailing that he had to take away from stirring the ammonium nitrate.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 16, 2005 02:52 PM (yhNln)
4
He comes back as from Washington DC but Rusty says that could be masked due to the provider.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 03:05 PM (D3+20)
5
got some Patels here nice poeple so far I hear that's a common name in the hotel business.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 03:07 PM (D3+20)
6
Patel is Indian. All the Patels I now are Hindu. Ditto the Rams. If anyone should know what Islamic aggression is about, it would be a Hindu. Must be a MoveOn.org Hindu....
Posted by: CDR Salamander at November 16, 2005 03:10 PM (m64uD)
7
I would suspect he is Muslim that name goes all over I think. Pakistan India area most likely. I'm guessing he is Muslim just a guess.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 03:25 PM (D3+20)
8
I know Patels who are Indian and Hindu, and I also know one family who is Indian and Muslim. Obviously a different set of Patels. But this guy is likely a Islamist, and even worse, an American or possibly a Britain.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 03:30 PM (rUyw4)
9
It's funny how these weevils love to use hate-speech yet whine when the koran or their beliefs are questioned and protest loudly against anything mildly critical of Islam. Typical one sided muslim thought. My dream is for an Islam free planet but hey I'd settle for them to remain in their own countries instead of using the western internet and western tools to condemn us.
Posted by: Jester at November 16, 2005 03:43 PM (JDzHB)
10
Sounds more like a kid - probably one of our own. Spelling,grammer and organization good - possibly suburban white afluent - probably a Ritilan baby bouncing off the walls from withdrawl or something. Patel could be anything.
Posted by: hondo at November 16, 2005 03:44 PM (Jvmry)
11
Yes I may just be making a troll happy eh hondo.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 03:50 PM (D3+20)
12
You know what would make him even happier, Howie? A visit from the feds.
We got someone possibly in DC threatening to "burn" New York. That distinguishes this from a lot of the other "love mail" we get around here.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 16, 2005 04:01 PM (Gj6wB)
13
Yep and I sent Rusty the info to do whatver Rusty does with that sort of thing. Plus while checking him out I was surfing the blog counter. I noted several interesting hits from several interesting places. Namely the US Senate for one. So they are reading here as well.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 04:07 PM (D3+20)
14
Dude, Rusty's actually Senator Saxby Chambliss. the academic gig is a red herring. He checks in now and then. Don't tell anybody.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 16, 2005 04:16 PM (Gj6wB)
15
No don't tell me nanananananananananaan I don't need to know. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by: Howie at November 16, 2005 04:18 PM (D3+20)
16
If they want Jerusalem so badly, why don't they just go for it. What are they afraid of? Oh right......the Jooooooos and their IDF.
Posted by: Graeme at November 16, 2005 04:32 PM (f5hNz)
17
Jester,
If you are not familiar with it, let me tell you about the Spanish experience with the Muslims after the Reconquista. Muslims were allowed to live freely in Spain, and soon after the end of the war for the reunification of Spain, the Muslims attempted a revolution.
Finally, the Spanish were forced to expell the Muslims or force them to convert to Catholicism. They did not want to do this, but it was forced on them. I think that will be Europe's choice again, if it wants to survive.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 04:55 PM (rUyw4)
18
The Jew is a vile creature descended from monkeys and pigs
Since both Jews and Arabs claim decent from Abraham, doesn't that insult Arabs as well?
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves at November 16, 2005 05:21 PM (cfegy)
19
Mahatma,
I see that there is more to you than just rice!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 05:41 PM (rUyw4)
20
JJ, unfortunately the powers the Spanish had no longer exist in Europe as it is the Christians that tolerate Islam and kept it amongst their societies. Didn't the Pope plead for tolerance between all religions? with a special mention given to islam. The fact is people will react to terrorism when it gets to the point where they fear for themselves and then drive them out. Europe will have to experience a 9/11 of it's own to get the message that tolerance with these people gets nowhere.
Posted by: Jester at November 16, 2005 06:06 PM (JDzHB)
21
BREAKING NEWS
NBC just reported that the American military used White Phosphorus as a WEAPON "against insurgents". There were 40,000 civilians still in Fallujah at the time.
Look at 'em. Jack off to it.
http://www.uruk net.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
(TAKE OUT SPACES)
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 06:45 PM (eYI8D)
22
Greg, you freakin' moron, everyone knows, and NOBODY CARES. And I hope it hurts like hell.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 07:24 PM (0yYS2)
23
greg:
Breaking? the story has been all over the Internet for a week, since it was originally published in an Italian magazine/site(?)
It's been majorly discredited due to the conditions of the bodies displayed as 'evidence' and due to the fact that no one observed it being used as a weapon other than well, insurgents.
However feel free to keep quoting it as a fact, you know who to trust over the American Military, that's right the Insurgents and the Italians!!!
Posted by: dave at November 16, 2005 07:34 PM (CcXvt)
24
You know, I cannot help but wonder where the hell these people like Greg want to go. Do they want us to lose the war in Iraq, and what do they think will happen in Iraq if we leave?
Is it just Bush Derangement Syndrome? Do they hate Bush that bad? Do they hate their own country that bad? Do they not see that we must support our troops until they win? Why are they helping the enemy? Do they not know that the troops coming home to a loss or premature exit that allows the Islamists to take over will be ready to hold them accountable? Because I sure as hell will be, and it ain't going to be pretty, I tell you that for damn sure! And I could give a shit whether I live 1 damn day after something like this happens. And Greg and his buddies should know exactly what this means.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 07:48 PM (rUyw4)
25
Impy,
Dave don't know. He's stoopie.
Dave:"However feel free to keep quoting it as a fact, you know who to trust over the American Military, that's right the Insurgents and the Italians!!!"
Um, er, ah, like um Dave, the military has admitted it.
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 07:49 PM (eYI8D)
26
Joe,
Um, uh like, the American people have been betrayed by their lying conniving Government, both Dems and Repugs.
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 07:53 PM (eYI8D)
27
White Phosphorous is the new Depleted Uranium. It sounds oh so scientific, so the conspiracy theorists have latched onto it. I wouldn't be suprised if in the coming weeks to see all sorts of things attributed to it, from birth defects and learning disabilities in children, to spoilt milk in goats.
Posted by: Graeme at November 16, 2005 07:56 PM (f5hNz)
28
And what you are doing or trying to do will accomplish or attempt to accomplish what, Greg? I'm curious, because be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 08:01 PM (rUyw4)
29
I want us to unite as voters and throw out all the politicians, Dems and Repubs. I want the ones who comitted treason to pay. I want the American people to declare bankruptsy and tell everyone who thinks we owe them money, to fuck off. Come get it, we ain't payin'.
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 08:15 PM (eYI8D)
30
Greg:
Prove it:
Quote one current military commander, that claims to have deployed White Phosphorous as a weapon, to deliberately kill or maim insurgents.
With your quote, I'm sure the "admittance" is using it to illuminate by air burst, which it has always been used as, but don't let facts stand in the way of slandering those willing to protect your right to slander them on the Internet Greg.
Posted by: dave at November 16, 2005 08:19 PM (CcXvt)
31
Does that meant the United States can count Saddam's WP as WMDs?
Oh, and wait until they find out that ordinary explosives act at the atomic level then they will accuse the US of using atomic weapons.
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves at November 16, 2005 08:23 PM (cfegy)
32
So championing the rights of terrorists ultimately will lead to the national debt being forgiven? That's a hell of an economic plan.
Posted by: Graeme at November 16, 2005 08:24 PM (f5hNz)
33
And then what, Greg? A verse of kumbaya and a group hug?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 08:30 PM (rUyw4)
34
DAVE
IT WAS ON NBC NEWS TONIGHT. THE US STATE DEPT ADMITTED THAT THE MILITARY USED WP AGAINST INSURGENTS.
JEEZ!
Joe and Graeme,
Stay under the economic yolk if you wish. You truly are sheeple.
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 08:44 PM (eYI8D)
35
Howie: The Patels are the very highest caste in India. Well respected and looked up to. I know. One was my partner for 18 years. He was a class act.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 16, 2005 08:47 PM (ZaAd/)
36
Did US forces use prohibited weapons during last year's military campaign against the Iraqi city of Fallujah? Yes, say the makers of a documentary broadcast this week by Italy's RAI public television service. The programme claims the US military used a kind of napalm and the highly inflammable white phosphor, but the Pentagon and US State Department deny the allegations.
Radio Netherlands, Netherlands - Nov 10, 2005
That sure was a quick retraction, it must be those impeachable sources that got them nervous, the Insurgents, and the Italians!
Posted by: dave at November 16, 2005 08:50 PM (CcXvt)
37
Greg you traitorous asshole. You've been playing the white phosporous thing way too long. You lonely, pitiful little prick. Give it up.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 16, 2005 08:51 PM (ZaAd/)
38
I saw a picture of a dog killed by WP on the news here and had more pity for it than the insurgent scum burned by it. That sums up how much I care about the use of WP in Iraq.
Posted by: Jester at November 16, 2005 09:14 PM (JDzHB)
39
Here Greg, heres a Pentagon statement:
US confirms use of white phosphorus in Iraq
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja.
Spokesman Colonel Barry Venable told the BBC the chemical was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants, but not against civilians.
The US had earlier denied the chemical had been used in Falluja at all.
However, Colonel Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white us devices.
Colonel Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".
So greg, you are indeed correct, the U.S military targeted insurgents positions with phosphor rounds.
Next question, why should I care?
Posted by: dave at November 16, 2005 09:16 PM (CcXvt)
40
Dave:"Next question, why should I care?"
Cuz there were 40,000 civilians in Fallujah at the time. Notice that one of the dead is a woman.
http://www.uru knet.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
(TAKE OUT SPACES)
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 09:26 PM (eYI8D)
41
Greg is back to the original story that was debunked last week. Greg, WP IS NOT A CHEMICAL WEAPON. YOU, THE MSM, THE BBC, ALL THE PRICKS THAT SAY IT IS ARE FULL OF IT. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?. THE US HAS USED WP IN EVERY CONFLICT SINCE WWII. WP has not been banned by any convention the US is signatory to. This is all a bunch of bullshit! Do you understand, or maybe you are retarded in your comprehension.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 09:56 PM (rUyw4)
42
It's not a chemical weapon. It's not banned. There are no reliable witnesses who say it was intentionally used on civilians. The pictures don't show what you claim they show.
The people telling you these things are lying to you. They're trusting that you're so eager to hate America that you'll never bother to question what they say.
You're proving them right.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 16, 2005 10:00 PM (Gn9tM)
43
you're all hopeless
Posted by: suck my cock at November 16, 2005 10:00 PM (eYI8D)
44
No, Greg, you are. What you are trying to do is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:08 PM (rUyw4)
45
Are all the reporters working at the old legacy networks just a bunch of dumn asses or what? That fool at NBC, Brian Williams, was pimping the SOS about WP we've been discussing for a week around the blogosphere.
Do these people do any research, or have anyone hired to do any research? Do they know what Google is? They are truly as useless as tits on a boar hog.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:39 PM (rUyw4)
46
If Jews are descended from monkeys and pigs, why are there still monkeys and pigs? There, I've disproved the Theory of Monkeypig Evolution.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 16, 2005 10:41 PM (QriEg)
47
Darned if you didn't, Ms. Pixy Misa. Where the heck are all those otters at tonight?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:45 PM (rUyw4)
48
I was in Columbia South Carolina tomorrow night, and found out that Steve Spurrier died for our sins. Two days from now I used to be in Daytona Beach and found out that Michelle Wie is my Lord and Savior....none of this has anything to do with anything but it gives me an opportunity to say that every Muslim in the world should be force-fed bacon, ham, and sausages and then give them some pulled pig sandwiches with barbeque sauce while making them wash their faces for once in their lives with pork lard soap.
Posted by: Steve Sharon at November 17, 2005 01:40 AM (Zagdc)
49
We should use any weapon at our disposal to defeat the cursed muslim hoard. Grey is a traitorous coward. A lowlife in the truest sense. More of an enemy than any muslim islamofacist. Pityful little shit.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:34 AM (ZaAd/)
50
Why to they place the Y so close to the G.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 17, 2005 05:36 AM (ZaAd/)
51
"Notice that one of the dead is a woman."
Yes. It appears to be a woman.
Notice that one of the bombers in Jordan was a woman. (Or at least they said she was. Looked like a particularly ugly man to me.)
Not only that, but she seemed to be wearing a low, V-cut, stylish dress. Something that, at the time, would not have been permitted "anywhere" in Fallujah.
Hmmm. I may be on to something here.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 06:15 AM (YudAC)
52
I just noticed, too, in the email - see how he capitalizes "Jew", but not "muslim"? It's possible the poor wretch has an inferiority complex and just needs a hug.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 06:39 AM (YudAC)
53
Greyrooster: Yes we have several Patels spread around here too. A lady & her husband and some girls about 20ish. So I can't quite explain while this person or whomever seems a bit ornery. Also keep in mind whomever said that may be deceptive using whomever elses email. Greg how come you are not upset at the UK as well?
Posted by: Howie at November 17, 2005 08:26 AM (D3+20)
54
Does the New York Times know this guy's plagiarizing their editorial page?
Posted by: Insomniac at November 17, 2005 09:42 AM (IEpte)
55
Fisking the WP story
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/133663.php
Arkin Up The Wrong Tree
I've come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from the foreign media regarding the error-riddled white phosphorus "crockumentary" produced by Rai News24, but it is another thing entirely for a writer for a major American news organization based in our nation's capitol to uncritically repeat such "news", as has William M. Arkin in his Washington Post piece, "White Death" Is A Losing Strategy.
Posted by: Mahatma Kane Jeeves at November 17, 2005 09:49 AM (dkWal)
56
The E-mail doesn't work.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 18, 2005 05:46 AM (ZaAd/)
57
This just in: New evidence has been uncovered that AmeriKKKan troops are using real bullets in their weapons, and are refusing to stand out in the open and let the Iraqi Freedom Fighters shoot them! Film at 11:00.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 10:37 AM (0yYS2)
58
For shame! For shame! I don't believe it. Americans would never sink so low. That would make the playing field too much in the Americans favor. I'm sure some General will change this new real bullit rule to a kinder, genteler approach to the problem of Marines being killed by road side bomber cowards.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:57 AM (ZaAd/)
Four Minutes to Stupid
Yesterday the Senate passed a Republican resolution rather than the Democratic sponsored resolution setting a weak time table for withdrawal from Iraq and adding reporting requirements on the White House after a whopping four minutes of debate. Was this a wise move?
I ask you Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard?
All honor to the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too, we-want-to-get-out-as-well-but-not-quite-as-quickly, Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. Let's hope their colleagues reconsider and join their ranks in the near future.
The answer is: Correct!!! it is pathetic. Obviously the Senate is pandering to the polls here and Al-Zaqueery can be satisfied that his predictions about US behavior are sadly accurate.
Prediction: Al-Qaeda in Iraq will now bide their time waiting for the US to bow to pressure both domestic and foreign to do what he canÂ’t. Push the US out and get his opportunity to establish an Islamic fascist state in Iraq.
Freddie "The Beetle" Barns?
Fred: Oh shut up Howie.
Posted by: Howie at
01:45 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I hope that when social order has broken down, lawlessness reigns, there is war in the streets, and the Capitol building has become an armed fortress, these bastards are happy.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:14 PM (0yYS2)
2
The only Republican Senators that should worry getting on the ticket in '08 in the #1 or #2 spot: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter.
Warner, Allen and Martinez should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at November 16, 2005 03:22 PM (m64uD)
3
The entire United States Senate should be ashamed, springing such an attack on the President while he is out of the country. This was nothing more than a cheap attack, and no Republican should have gone along with this. Sorry bunch of assholes is what they are, the entire Senate. This could have been delayed until the President's return. And I would say this if we had a Democrat as President.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 03:38 PM (rUyw4)
4
I told you Martinez sucked. I'm shocked at Allen. Oh well, looks like they're dropping like flies. Or just dropping their pants.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 03:40 PM (fl6E1)
5
A letter to the wusses.
Senator,
Re: The American Surrender Resolution of 2005
I am named for an uncle who gave his life in the Pacific in 1942 for the freedom of this nation and its principles. My father lost a lung to bunker oil in the waters of the Pacific in 1943 for this nation and its principles. I carry shrapnel from two combat wounds and wear a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and two Purple Hearts acquired while defending this nation’s principles on the rivers of Vietnam in 1968 and ‘69. I believe this grants me moral authority to say what follows.
I finally became a committed Republican in 1972 when a Democratic Congress voted to defund support of our allies in South Vietnam. That act of moral cowardice and treachery to our founding principles led to the death of millions in the killing fields of Southeast Asia.
Your vote yesterday in favor of what I’m calling the “American Surrender Resolution of 2005” is a travesty unparalleled in post-Vietnam American history. Your cowardice in face of an electorate deliberately misled by Democrats and a traitorous National Media is beneath contempt. It will lead directly to the death of now uncountable Americans and Iraqis and their graves will lie directly at your feet. Senator, you are a moral coward and the worst type of political panderer.
This vote provides direct aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Thus Senator, you have no right so serve in elective office. I will work tirelessly to assure you are removed from office at the earliest possible date. I will spare no treasure or waking moment in this quest and anticipate the moment I can spit on your political grave.
I do commend with all honors the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too cowardly Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. You should look to them for the courage you obviously lack.
Disrespectfully,
G. Thomas Mortensen
USA S/V Anticipation
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Posted by: RiverRat at November 16, 2005 04:51 PM (oNFas)
6
Al Zaqueery is now RAT FACE ZAQUEERY, RAT FACE ZAQUEERY. Damn it. Get it right.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 16, 2005 09:05 PM (ZaAd/)
7
So does this mean everyone likes McCain now?
Posted by: KG at November 16, 2005 09:21 PM (eRMCR)
8
No, I hate the bastard. Clear enough.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:10 PM (rUyw4)
9
Does anyone know what the Senate is actually for? Can't we just shut it down and pension idjits off? The Mean Thirteen could run for governor or something.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at November 16, 2005 10:44 PM (QriEg)
10
"So does this mean everyone likes McCain now?"
A resounding "No". Even a monkey hits the right button once in a while.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 06:46 AM (YudAC)
11
Stockholm John must go, he's just a hand puppet for the dhimmis.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 12:38 PM (0yYS2)
12
Does anyone know what the senate is actually for? Think, think, think. Answer. Nope!!!
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:49 AM (ZaAd/)
Open Source Media Launches Today, Live Broadcast
OSMTM (Open Source Media), a new online venture designed to bring together top online writers, journalists and commentators under a single umbrella, officially debuts today at a New York City launch event that features a discussion on the future of blogging and journalism, details on the company's content and the official launch of the new portal to the best of the blogosphere.
OSMTM (Open Source Media), a new online venture designed to bring together top online writers, journalists and commentators under a single umbrella, officially debuts today at a New York City launch event that features a discussion on the future of blogging and journalism, details on the company's content and the official launch of the new portal to the best of the blogosphere. The Jawa Report is one of 70 top blogs now a part of Open Source Media.
Today's launch event will include comments by Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds and Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author Judith Miller, who will discuss the "Shield Law" bill currently before Congress and broader issues facing bloggers and journalists alike.
The launch will be broadcast live at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and can be heard via Windows Media here or via Real Audio here.
Other speakers will include David Corn (The Nation), Larry Kudlow (CNBC's "Kudlow & Company"), John Podhoretz (The New York Post) and Claudia Rosett (contributor to The Wall Street Journal), all of whom are noted bloggers and members of the Open Source Media Editorial Board, plus an appearance via audiocast by the noted Baghdad bloggers Iraq the Model.
Founded last year under the Pajamas Media name, OSM has been one of 2005's most widely-discussed new blogging developments, due both to the scope of its vision and the support it's drawn from respected mainstream media journalists and bloggers.
Today, Open Source Media will detail its plan to become the new meeting ground for thoughtful opinion and news online, and a unique home for the growing movement of citizen journalism that will include important webloggers from across the world with mainstream media journalists sympathetic to its goals.
"Our most important goal is openness via the free and respectful exchange of ideas expressed through citizen journalists, coupled with a dedication to honesty and the truth," said co-founder, noted screenwriter and blogger Roger L. Simon. "When we talk about citizen journalism, we mean journalism not created by elites, as in the 'top-down' traditional media, but from the 'bottom-up,' by citizens using their observations and knowledge, informed by a desire to speak honestly. Citizen journalism at its best means the pursuit of the truth above all things, above partisanship or the financial interests of the medium publishing it."
Today's announcement comes as the blogosphere maintains staggering growth. According to a January 2005 report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, blog readership increased by nearly 60 percent in 2004 to approximately 27 percent of all Internet users. More recently, analysis by the Newspaper Association of America found that the average weekday circulation of U.S. newspapers is continuing to decline, falling 2.6 per cent over the six month-period ending in September 2005. But, while cognizant of these trends, Open Source Media's vision remains one of evolution and cooperation.
Open Source Media currently features content from more than 70 bloggers worldwide, primarily focused on political and current events. However, the goal is to expand its scope to eventually include all forms of coverage, from local news to pop culture to sports, fashion, food, hobbies and more. Advising the company and its bloggers is an Open Source Media Editorial Board that includes Reynolds, Corn, Kudlow, Rosett, Michael Barone and 10 other noted journalists and bloggers announced on October 17.
Today's event will take place at The Rainbow Room, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. The event will be audiocast live beginning at 10 a.m.
BEGINNING AT 10:00 AM EASTERN: STREAM LIVE AUDIO WITH WINDOWS MEDIA OR REAL MEDIA
Compiled from OSMTM and other sources.
Posted by: Rusty at
09:30 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.
1
What does Dennis the Peasant have against Roger and Pajamas Media or now - OSM? I still don't get it. He keeps raging on him.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 03:41 PM (fl6E1)
2
I still haven't figured out what is particularly 'open source' about this thing. Open source is identified with some particular things out there. What about them equates to that?
Posted by: actus at November 17, 2005 05:11 PM (Zi15r)
WTW Tornaders of November.
Yesterday afternoon here at the office we were all told to go down to the lowest level and hang in the hall. Sirens had been going off for a bit. It was pretty much like your school drill except for the storm had already passed and it was not a drill. So while we had fun hiding in the hall and talking several tornaders did occur. LetÂ’s see we have Cannellburgh IN, Davies Co In, Gibson Co KY, Hopkins Co KY. Homes destroyed phone and power interrupted. Heck it even got the Kangaroo Express in Cannellburgh. My son explained it to me this way. You got your hot air here and your cold air here and boom it just explodes like a volcano. So at least these were during the day. Lake Gitche Gumee ainÂ’t the only place the Gales of November are a problem.
Here are your White Trash Wednesday bloggers
Posted by: Howie at
09:28 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
November 15, 2005
Liberty and Jihadi Dating
Carnival of Liberty XX is up at Ericgrumbles.
Also see the latest Jihadi matchmakers here at Vonski.
Posted by: Howie at
01:06 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Just heard that the latest news from Iraq is that some Iraqis claim that US soldiers forced them into cages with lions. Yep! That's what we do. General order number 14. A Marine must haul a pen of lions with him to torture prisoners. Worst part of this fairy tale is that idiots like Greg the traitor and Downing Street Moron will swear it true.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 01:33 PM (ZaAd/)
2
Lions in Iraq. A lady down the road had one a big male about 800 lbs. They had seval big cats. It's paws were as big as a plate. It played with her husband one day till he was dead. No it liked him he was just so fragile. My advice don't screw with lions.
Posted by: Howie at November 15, 2005 01:46 PM (D3+20)
3
Did anyone notice how ugly that bitch was that failed to blow herself up in Jordan? No wonder the husband was keen to get his 72 raisins. I think the principal behind jihadi dating is to hook up with an ugly arab bitch so that you are inspired to die.
Posted by: Jester at November 15, 2005 02:15 PM (JDzHB)
4
Good one, Jester. And I think that's what wrong with Greg, too. Haha!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 02:20 PM (rUyw4)
5
And you know that thing with the goats that Allah advised his horny guys to try, well, I see why Allah offered that advice after looking at that old gal at Vonski. She would make a locomotive take a dirt road!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 03:41 PM (rUyw4)
6
I am lion. Hear me roar!
Posted by: Ariya at November 15, 2005 03:52 PM (noCGr)
7
JJ, no doubt about it. I think these dames wear a burkha so they can trap a man...without one they would have no chance.
Posted by: Jester at November 15, 2005 04:35 PM (JDzHB)
8
Where in God's name would Marines find lions? I can't find them in the CAV or any service/supply catalog!
They probably could get their hands on some Vietnamese potbellied pigs (plenty of those around)or even a German boar.
Wow! Imagine a jihadist in a cage with 400 pounds of nasty angry wild German pork with an attitude!
Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 04:36 PM (Jvmry)
9
Wow! Imagine a jihadist in a cage with 400 pounds of nasty angry wild German pork with an attitude!
Or in a cage with that gal from Vonski...I don't know which would be the better form of torture.
Posted by: Jester at November 15, 2005 04:44 PM (JDzHB)
10
I bet they order them on the flight over from skymall.
Posted by: Maureen at November 15, 2005 05:00 PM (ny5O/)
11
Now ya'll know that PETA and the SPCA would never allow those poor lions to be abused in such a manner. Please! The WWF would literally have a cow! Or perhaps a pig in this case.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 05:14 PM (rUyw4)
12
At last something the greyrooster and the muslims agree with. Cover those hoes up or beat their butts.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 06:28 PM (ZaAd/)
13
Actually, arranging meetings between lions and jihadis sounds like a good plan to me. Imagine the fight that would erupt between PETA and all the other lib groups about which party has suffered more - the innocent, exploited lions or the "resistance fighters". Heck we might even be treated to a brawl between Pam Anderson and Ted Kennedy which should be somewhat entertaining on a slow night.
Posted by: Graeme at November 15, 2005 07:28 PM (r2qQp)
14
"The Pentagon has confirmed that US troops used white phosphorus during last year's offensive in the northern Iraqi city of Falluja."
http://news.bbc. co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440664.stm
(TAKE OUT SPACES-"questionable content")
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 15, 2005 08:32 PM (eYI8D)
15
Yes, yes, Greg, the Pentagon has never denied the use of white phosphorus. Good God, man, this story has been around for a week and all the ludicrous claims that WP is a chemical weapon have been debunked.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 08:48 PM (rUyw4)
16
Who cares if they used white phosphorus or chemical weapons for that matter. Since when has fighting muslims had to be subject to rules...the muslims tore up the rules long ago and I'm sure they wouldn't mind a bit of "eye for an eye"...afterall it's in the koran.
Posted by: Jester at November 15, 2005 09:09 PM (JDzHB)
17
Hey dumbass, WP has been a standard in all nations' arsenals since WW2. It's used for target marking and incindiary purposes, and sometimes just to blow the hell out of people. It's totally standard you subwit fucktard.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:13 PM (0yYS2)
18
It wasn't public knowledge, in fact the military had DENIED using WP (see below).
THECK OUT THESE COOL PICS
http://www.urukn et.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
(TAKE OUT SPACE AFTER urukn)
Don't it just make you want to wack off?
"The US earlier denied it had been used in Falluja at all.
Col Venable denied that the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - constituted a banned chemical weapon.
White phosphorus is an incendiary weapon, not a chemical weapon
Col Barry Venable
Pentagon spokesman
US military interview
Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus devices.
Col Venable said a statement by the US state department that white phosphorus had not been used was based on "poor information".
The BBC's defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial has been a public relations disaster for the US military."
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 15, 2005 09:57 PM (eYI8D)
19
The BBC is full of shit and everyone with a brain knows it. Damn, this story has been vetted numerous times. Go find some new propaganda, Greg, we ain't buying this load of manure.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 10:21 PM (rUyw4)
20
Joe,
The story hasn't been vetted. The State Dept. has made a RETRACTION on the part of the military that formerly was claiming that no WP was ever used in Fallujah.
Can we at least agree on one thing? GO HORNS, GO COWBOYS!
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 15, 2005 10:30 PM (eYI8D)
21
Yep!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 11:24 PM (rUyw4)
22
goggle col venable - waded thru 1st 10 pages and gave up - couldn't find ghost's Venable material.
goggle Paul Wood BBC - waded thru first 5 pages - found numerous pages (from the Left no less) attacking him for failure to support and document their claims.
uruknet ????? - an outspoken pro-Saddam, pro-insurgent, pro-anything anti-American site of the ultra-left based in Italy. Young wannabe new-communists eager for the babble of revolutionary BS from the comforts of the Cafes. Oh, and very objective of course. They have off-shoots that sing the praises of lil' Kim and NK (that glorious paradise) and Slobadon and the boys from Serbia to name a few.
Ghost and his kind are a joke - don't let them get to you or raise your blood pressure. for them a papercut in the service of their cause counts as their Red Badge Of Courage. They fantasize about storming the barricades and waving the red flag in victory ala les Miserables - as long as it is without risk or conflicts with their busy schedule like (Tues: release the lab rats - "Flee my lil' mammalian bothers! Flee! You are liberated! Ooooochhh! Who bit me!")
De lions! De lions Ghost! Tell us about de lions!
Posted by: hondo at November 16, 2005 02:23 AM (Jvmry)
23
I looked at those pics when they first came out. Lot of missing limbs there. Didn't know WP could blow limbs off. And most of those corpses look more like they've been out drying in the sun for a while than WP victims. Then we see the corpses lined up next to a building and funny .... doesn't look like any of them were burned. I'm skeptical - very skeptical and I remain unconvinced.
Feeling sorry for them greg? They're terrorists. Get that? It's them or our guys. I suppose greg would rather it was our guys.
Greg thinks he can look at a picture and tell you what someone died of. Tell me, greg, where did you get your medical examiner's degree? uru knet (of ALL sites) tells him something and he swallows it, hook, line and sinker. He demands that we ask questions, be skeptical, yet never saw a conspiracy he didn't completely fall for.
Yawn.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 06:06 AM (YudAC)
24
BTW. On the subject at hand - eJihadi was funny as hell.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 06:13 AM (YudAC)
25
I thought I'd be at a point where liberalist hypocrisy doesn't suprise me, but everytime I come across it, it makes my head spin. WP may cause burns. Really? That's a hell of a lot worse than conventional RDX which makes people mell like roses. And just to put it in perspective, is using WP really worse **than jihadis killing a kid and putting a bomb in the corpse just to target the parents** (feel free to insert any liberal approved jihadi attrocity here)?
Oh and for the record, about the use of WP: It's got my approval.
Posted by: Graeme at November 16, 2005 06:45 AM (f5hNz)
26
Cool pics! Looks like it wasn't a good day for jihad.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:08 AM (0yYS2)
27
Oyster:"I looked at those pics when they first came out. Lot of missing limbs there."
You lie, Oyster. Not one of the pics shows missing limbs.
http://www.urukn et.info/?p=m10211&l=i&size=1&hd=0
(TAKE OUT SPACE AFTER urukn)
Posted by: menenzes' ghost at November 16, 2005 01:33 PM (eYI8D)
28
Okay, I lied. One has a missing limb. Sue me.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 01:59 PM (fl6E1)
29
No missing limbs, but lots of crispy critters. 
I like my jihadi served up well-done, with a side of oh snap!
I like my jihadi served up well-done, with a side of oh snap!Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:20 PM (0yYS2)
30
So ghost isn't just a troll, but a stupid troll?
What's it like going through life as a mental cripple, ghost? Since you still believe in magic, you'd better get out of here, or we'll put a hex on you.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 16, 2005 03:27 PM (n5eDP)
31
IM: number (I think ... the page won't load now) 404 04 f04 has a missing limb. Bone sticking out where an arm should be.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 03:49 PM (fl6E1)
32
Ah, good call Oyster. I didn't look too closely the first time; I was too busy thinking HA! No jihad for you!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 07:27 PM (0yYS2)
33
Yes, Robert, greg, AKA ghost, is a certifiable idiot. He posts on a Yahoo group where they discuss the benefits of tinfoil hats against Jooooish mind control rays, and how it's a Jooooish conspiracy that none of them have ever lain with a woman, and all live in their mothers' basements, and deliver pizza for a living.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 07:30 PM (0yYS2)
34
IM: Ha, Ha, Ha. You win this one. Hands down.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 16, 2005 09:13 PM (ZaAd/)
35
What gets me is that every now and then greg will sound rather sane and patriotic, but then the spell passes and he's cheering for Osama again.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 17, 2005 11:23 AM (0yYS2)
36
Osama and little 8 year old boys. You forgot the little boys so favored by Greg the traitor.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:45 AM (ZaAd/)
Questioning Their Patriotism: Between a Rock and...
From David Adesnik, on Oxblog "Are the Democrats Lying?":
"IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE LYING, THEN THEY REALLY ARE UNPATRIOTIC": That is the basic argument that Glenn makes here, and that Tom Maguire has aptly summed up by observing that
I believe there is a substantial difference between "Your false charges are undermining the troops" and "Your criticism is undermining our troops".I agree with this argument in the abstract, although I don't think that it justifies what George Bush said. For Bush to be in the right, it should be transparently clear that his opponents are lying. I would argue that while the Democrats may not be telling the truth, it is not intentional. Instead, they have succumbed to confusion, short-sightedness, and unthinking resentment of the President.
Which, when you think about it, are ideal qualities to have in a political opponent, aren't they? Not just because an opponent with impaired judgment is easy to outmaneuver, but because they're a little less endearing to folks making up their minds about who ought to be governing them.
Update: David says, later:
more...
Posted by: Demosophist at
12:19 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think you are giving the Democrats too much room to wiggle out of their actions. They have left what is honest and best for the country. Anything to achieve their idea of what society should be like. Even if it destroys this nation.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 01:39 PM (ZaAd/)
2
Amen, brotha.
Posted by: Rusty at November 15, 2005 03:40 PM (JQjhA)
3
Hey, Rusty, what it is!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 03:42 PM (rUyw4)
4
So basically, Demosophist, what is being said is that it isn't fair to pick on the intellectually challenged?
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 04:29 PM (fl6E1)
5
Oyster: It's fair, it's fair.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 06:31 PM (ZaAd/)
6
Bush and Co. lied about what intelligence the U.S. had on Iraq - and the Dems fell for it. Just about everybody by now has figured it out - the entire Iraqi adventure is a crock of BS, including the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, who essentially voted >against
Posted by: D. at November 15, 2005 08:45 PM (9/ram)
7
Can you read, D? Read the following post here on the Jawa and come back here again and tell me what Sen. Rockefeller told Chris Wallace. You can't be as uninformed as you seem.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 09:04 PM (rUyw4)
8
The only things libtards love better than hating America is telling lies about America while they hate it. All fucking liberals must fucking hang.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:16 PM (0yYS2)
9
Everyone has to admit though....Liberals are sooooo entertaining.
Without their stupidity to comment on, what could these places laugh about?
Besides, they make great moving targets.....
Tex
Posted by: Texas Marksman at November 17, 2005 03:34 PM (dyUaJ)
10
D: How can someone as dumb as you learn to turn on a computer? Ah shit! Someone at the welfare center probably left it on. Bush and company lied. Yea sure.
They acted on information supplied by government agencies and government employees. Of which 95% are liberal democrats. Dumbass.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 20, 2005 06:41 AM (ZaAd/)
Everybody Was Lying All The Time Except Now Believe Me.
Ok top liars about the war in Iraq this week are:
Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Democratic Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and the number one lying traitor this week is Senator Jay Rockefeller D WV.
Foxnews
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm...
WALLACE: You're not?
Ok so the bottom line is that the congress when voting for the Iraq war shirked its duty. The constitution grants war powers to the congress. The congress ever wary of ever doing anything passes the buck to President Bush by granting him powers to use his best judgment rather than actually declare a state of war. Why do this? Because the American public has the attention span of a fruit fly. Now they can both cast blame on the President and distort the truth for political gain. So I took the google challenge on this one and it seems to me the real problem here is that the congress was full of chickenshit pass the buck cowards. In fact any President who gets one of these “authorizations” probably gets a queasy feeling right from the start because he knows the congress is to hell with what is right, which way is the wind blowing today?
Others: Watchblog, Techcentral, Michelle Malkin, Don Surber and last but not least California Conservative who made instapundit today. Way to go CC.
Posted by: Howie at
12:11 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 251 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Rockefeller also admitted in the interview with Chris Wallace that he told Syria that the US intended to attack Iraq long before the invasion took place. Wonder what precautions Saddam and Assad were able to take with that information from a US Senator. Don't say an invasion was obvious to Saddam, because a threat of an invasion is much different than an actual revelation from a senator. Rockefeller and the Democrats should be taken to task over this.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 12:32 PM (rUyw4)
2
For a guy [Rockefeller] who is quick to take to task those who make assumptions, he sure is making a lot of assumptions.
1) Bush Planned to invade Iraq the day after 9/11? Hell, every president has plans, ready at hand, to invade anyone at any given time. They'd be stupid not to.
2) If we kill Zarqawi the whole network will diminish rapidly? I doubt it. This is merely wishful thinking. There's a lot of that going on.
3) We only had two days to decide? WAAAHH! They had over a decade to decide.
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 04:53 PM (fl6E1)
3
Rockefeller is a fucking traitor.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:17 PM (0yYS2)
4
Yes, he is, IM, along with many others. What should we do?
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 09:27 PM (rUyw4)
5
Isn't hanging, or firing squad, the normal method of disposal for traitors? After due process of law, of course. If Bush had any balls, he'd have Justice enforcing the separation of powers, but he doesn't, because he isn't a real Republican, he's just a conservative dhimmicrat who doesn't want to deal with traitors or the border problem, and who has only expanded the government since he took office. I'll never vote dhimmicrat, but I damn sure won't vote Republican next time.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:58 PM (0yYS2)
6
It's not so amazing that we can't get anything done even having the majority in every branch of government.
It's because we DON'T have a majority.
We have too many Senators and Congressmen who say they're Republican on paper, but aren't in practice. McCain, Specter, Voinovich, etc. aren't Republicans. Hell, McCain is more popular among Democrats than his own party.
Lindsay Graham, God bless him, has balls. And Curt Weldon, Orrin Hatch, George Allen, etc. There are some good ones.
I voted for Mel Martinez to get rid of Betty Castor in my own state and now he is even pissing me off. Next cycle we'll likely have Katherine Harris going up against Bill Nelson(D). I want to get rid of Nelson, but please don't make me vote for Harris. I can't even look at her without imagining her wearing a t-shirt that says "I WISH THESE WERE BRAINS".
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 05:30 AM (YudAC)
7
Screw 'em all, I'm voting for David Duke or some other asshat next time, just because.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:20 PM (0yYS2)
8
you all are funny
Posted by: someone somewhere laughing at November 16, 2005 02:57 PM (kOGnv)
9
Anyone hear of LIBERRTARIAN (i.e. CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY)?
You get what you vote for....
Vote for the lesser of two evils and you still end up with evil!
I too am as guilty as the rest, there just wasn't any GD way I wanted Al Gore or John Kerry in there, so I voted for G Bush.
IF I ONLY HAD A CHOICE!
BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT POLITICS IS ANY MORE. BOTH MAJOR PARTIES ARE THE SAME, JUST TO DIFFERENT DEGREES.
TEX
Posted by: Texas Marksman at November 17, 2005 03:40 PM (dyUaJ)
Iraq Gun Porn: Which Guns Suck, Which Guns Rock
UPDATE: Welcome minions of Drew Curtis!
Which commonly used weapons in Iraq do our brave soldiers give the thumbs up to and which do they thumb their nose at? Here is a review.
Even though I've been pretty much out of The Jawa Report loop for the past month or so, I do get a ton of e-mails daily. From time to time I get an e-mail worthy of sharing with you. This is one. It was forwarded by a reader in the Navy, Mike, who in turn got it from a friend of his in the Marines. You may have seen it making the rounds already. The review of the weapons are one recently returned Marine's opinion [name removed to protect his identity] and does not necessarily mean a consensus has formed. If you scroll to the end you'll also see an assessment of our enemiy's capability as well as those of our allies.
As the son and grandson of two very fine Marines, let me wish all those fighting in Iraq all the best and God speed in a final victory over the enemies of the United States of America.
------
1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. [The Marine] says you feel
filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is
more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems
also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and
weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm
(.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over
there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine
gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic
jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly.
(that's fun in the middle of a firefight).
3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys
hit multiple times and still in the fight.
4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30
cal. belt fed machine gun,
developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!).
Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.
Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being
dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the
structure over there.
more...
Posted by: Rusty at
09:52 AM
| Comments (321)
| Add Comment
Post contains 2389 words, total size 14 kb.
1
This just confirms what many of us in the shooting fraternity have known all along. That is why I own 2 Colt .45 autos and a Springfield Armory Socom in .308 cal. Many of us tried to prevent the US military from adoping the 9mm cartridge and chunking the .45 auto. Big mistake and probably cost lives in several deployments over the past few years.
As for the enemy, well, I also own an AK-47 and find it to be very reliable but difficult to shoot acurately at longer ranges. The Socom beats the hell at out it. A 9mm pistol is a useless piece of junk when using hardnose rounds. Sorry!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 10:23 AM (rUyw4)
2
Maybe H&K's cartridgeless ammunition will allow the military to adopt a larger round with a weapon like the H&K G11, without the disadvantage of weight.
They could also switch to a polymer cased round which would further also offset caliber to weight ratio.
http://warrifles.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4501
Posted by: dave at November 15, 2005 10:45 AM (CcXvt)
3
That's a heck of a read. Three cheers for John Moses Browning.
Posted by: Graeme at November 15, 2005 11:15 AM (r2qQp)
4
Great gun pr0n. Now I need a smoke... ;-)
Posted by: Insomniac at November 15, 2005 11:33 AM (IEpte)
5
I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised. In fact, if one were to set out to design a more unreliable weapon, I don't think it could be done, at least not easily. The problem is that its moving parts all have close tolerances, and the filthy, carbon laden exhaust gas that is used to cycle the action is discharged smack into the middle of the mechanism, giving everything inside the weapon a good coat of carbon fouling, especially the bolt and bolt carrier. Add this to the fact that the bolt carrier rides inside the upper reciever, in almost total direct metal to metal contact, with little room in between, which makes a perfect dirt trap, the weapon is a study in how to do it the wrong way. The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard.
The M243 SAW is plagued by the fact that is is essentially a miniaturized and modernized M240, and thus all parts are smaller and more delicate, and it is mostly made of aluminum. I know from personal experience that it is pronbe to fouling and breakage. The M240 is the FN MAG, and is a proven weapon, but the M243, called the MINIMI, was basically purchased untested by an Army desperate to modernize.
I hate the Beretta pistol, and the 9mm cartridge, and will say no more about it.
I think the best infantry weapon would be a modernized AK variant with a good, proven, mid-size cartridge. The AK is absolutely reliable under any conditions, and suffers from few design problems, all of which may be easily fixed with a little tweaking. I fired a custom AK at the range last week, and the accuracy and controllability was unbelievablable. It was built on a heavier RPK receiver, with a McMillan chrome lined barrel, and a left-side, thumb-lever safety. Even with standard 7.62x39 ammo, it was head-shot accurate at 125 yards, and I put ten rounds into a milk jug while standing, and shooting unsupported. The owner said he had made 300 yard shots with open sights, and I believe him. If it were chambered in .243 Winchester or .257 Roberts, it would be perfect. The Army is going to go to the 6.8mm SPC, which is essentially a .257 Roberts, which was one of the best big game rounds ever made for anything less than 300 lbs., but alas, they're not going to adapt the most proven automatic weapon design of all time, but instead, they're going to go with an unproven design and Buch Rogers technology, just like they did with the M16 in Vietnam. Some people never learn.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:03 PM (0yYS2)
6
IM,
I purchased a Springfield Armory Socom about 2 months ago and have found it to be the best rifle I have ever fired, including the AK-47, although I have not fired any AK variants to which you allude.
I like the .308 and do not understand why the military will not just stick with that cartridge rather than having to add another variant. Makes little sense to me.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 12:11 PM (rUyw4)
7
You can't do jack about the environment! No such thing as all-terrain all-purpose - shit happens.
Which is why the basics are sacred! Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. If you ain't cleaning daily every chance you get, and treating and protecting your weapon like it was your virgin sister - including mags and rounds - you are wrong!
You can talk guntalk all you want around the barracks, but your hands better be busy on your lil' sister, or hondo or his contemporaries will be putting their boot up your ass!
Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 12:11 PM (Jvmry)
8
Bring back my beloved 23lbs of M-60 and the M-14.
While we're at it, nothing will knock somebody's ass down quite like the .45.
A thing of beauty I tell ya!
Posted by: dick at November 15, 2005 12:48 PM (XlQVK)
9
Dang, that's good stuff, Rusty. I just learned more about how the war is actually going in Iraq than I have from the NY Times since the shooting started. 9Exception--Dexter Filkins on Fallujah was good.)
I'd link you, but, um, I blog here, so there's not much point.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 15, 2005 02:15 PM (yhNln)
10
The M-16 was a piece of shit when it was introduced in Viet Nam, and it ain't no better now. Frickin' glorified .22 mag. round and the worst possible design for 'dirty' environments. Ever see a clean battlefield?
If you wanted to jam an M-14, I suppose you could, but you'd sure have to work at it; and the 7.62 NATO [.308 Winchester] caliber is the worldwide round of choice for snipers and SWAT teams for a reason.
Posted by: Charlie at November 15, 2005 02:29 PM (2ZhL/)
11
Awesome article.
I've always disliked how our Army command has remained so stubborn about using foreign assault rifles. The M-16 always has been and always will be a piece of crap. At least the XM-8 might be better, but it still uses the NATO 5.56 round, and even worse, it's on hold because H&K hasn't been quick to let us procure the design. The whole kick-arse OICW program has been put on indefinite hold because the budget bigshots are being picky, while our forces' main assault weapons are second-rate! We should look at one of the better European rifles like the G36 (adopt the whole family, it's better than the M-16 family), the AUG, or the FN2000. It would be better to just go to a modern G3 variant/descendant.
Over there, I'd definitely go for either a FN P90 (stopping power's a tad low, but it's a pocket-size bullet-hose that goes through anything, and has amazingly low recoil), or an AK-103 (the modern 7.62mm AK).
Posted by: Jeff at November 15, 2005 04:01 PM (1MHqI)
12
There was a period early after 911 when you would read in message traffic now and then for specific individuals coming over that they needed to bring their own weapons (remember this was right after 911 - weapons even in the 5th FLT AOR were hard to come by for the first couple of months), but try to make it 9mm or 45 so you could get ammo in theater. I sent and email over to my boss asking if my wife could send my something DHL.....Thoughts of Kimber floating in my head...... he said no. Sigh. Did my little part of OEF with .... nothing. I could throw a stapler with fairly good accuracy, and I could flip a 3.5" disk like a throwing star though.
BTW, the comment about the talcum powder is right on. I can feel that stuff on my teeth just thinking about it.
Posted by: CDR Salamander at November 15, 2005 04:08 PM (m64uD)
13
The reason why 9mm and .223 rounds are prevalent in our military is because of cost effectiveness.
Compare the prices of the ammunition and guns?
Winchester® USA Handgun WinClean® 9 mm Luger® 115 Gr. BEB 50 rds.$7.47
Winchester® USA Pistol .45 auto 230 Gr. FMJ 50 rds.$10.77
Remington® AccuTip™ Rifle .223 Rem.® 50 Gr. AT-BT 20 rds.$14.47
Remington® AccuTip™ Rifle .308 Win.® 165 Gr. AT-BT 20 rds.$20.17
.308 m-14Â’s run around $1k
.223 m-16Â’s cost about half.
Perhaps government contracts would drive the prices of the better quality ammo and guns down as demand went up.
But face it, politicians arm our warriors, otherwise we would see our standard infantrymen using 1911 .45’s and .308 garands as our grand daddies did over half a century ago when they kicked commie ass, instead of using NATO weapons for our friendly more sensitive 21st century “peace keepers.”
Posted by: Mr EMT at November 15, 2005 04:08 PM (j68Ui)
14
I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised.
I disagree. They are quite reliable and fun to shoot. However, the tight tolerances (which make them more accurate than a lot of other battle rifles) are easy to gunk up when there's no time for cleaning. The POF gas mechanism would change that.
The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard
Not quite. It is quite useless coming out of the 14.5 inch barrel most troops use. The 20 inch version is quite effective. The other hindrance is that the military uses FMJs over JHPs due to some war rule.
I've also heard that the 6.8SPC project is done for. Bummer.
The US will never use AKs or 7.62X39 because they're viewed as commie guns/rounds.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 15, 2005 04:21 PM (CDrd/)
15
Still, at the end of the day "it is the poor workman who blames his tools".
Use to play a game on the ranges - let people bring along their personals (POW) - lots of exotic toys - lots of goo goo gah gahs and wows from the crowd.
But before you can fire - you had to fieldstrip to specs/inspect and reassemble in time allotted. You'd be surprised how many putzs there were.
And afterwards none of that - bag it - trunk of the car -"sarge - I'll clean it at home on the kitchen table with my wife" crap. Show me.
Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 04:21 PM (Jvmry)
16
And I'll ask for the 3rd time, just what the hell is wrong with the .308 Winchester cartridge? I love it, I have a great battle rifle(the Springfield Armory Socom) that shoots it, and it seems that the troops are demanding it(the post lists modified M-14's as very reliable and effective).
So what gives? Seems like the solution is just too easy as the right gun and cartridge already exists.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 04:54 PM (rUyw4)
17
Nothing, it's a great cartridge. Not only do they exist, but the army has stockpiles of them.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 15, 2005 04:58 PM (CDrd/)
18
Being a girl and all, I can't hold a sophisticated conversation on guns like you guys, but may I say I do like my Mossberg - very much. The hubby loves his Blackhawk. He's a big man and says "big men should have big guns". I've only shot it a couple times on dad's ranch. Too much power for me, but what a show stopper.
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 05:07 PM (fl6E1)
19
Ruger Blackhawk in .44 magnum, Oyster? Hot damn, I like my .44 magnum S&W Model 29, also.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 05:19 PM (rUyw4)
20
Alright, I gotta stick up for my beloved AR-15 here. First, weapon characteristics (accuracy, reliability) are give and take, plain and simple. If you make the M16 as rugged and reliable as the AK, you will sacrifice accuracy. No way around that. Simple give and take.
Second, I personally know a former Navy Seal and a Green Beret who have both told me that as long as you concentrate on proper shooting technique (front sight, press), the 5.56mm answers the mail every time. You can pick headshots with it with no problem. Fallujah was headshot central because of Marines with ACOGs and M16A4s. The only problem with that round is the KIND of round our troops are forced to use. Forget all this FMJ crap. We need soft points and ballistic tips over there. The new Black Hills 77gr. is nasty and will change some negative opinions for sure. Some people act like the 6.8 is some miracle round that will kill a human outright even if the round grazes them. Not the case. The M16/5.56mm has a lot of advantages that most people overlook. Ponder this: If some maniac walked into a shopping mall when you happened to be there and started firing an M4 at people, would you say 'OH, thats only a 5.56mm exiting through a 14.5 inch barrel, honey. We have nothing to worry about.'A bullet is a bullet is a bullet...
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:00 PM (CtVG6)
21
Two weapons, Mark 19 way way way cool. For the movies,
and real life, nothing beats the Tommy gun. Tommy, Tommy,
I want a Tommy gun with a drum.
Posted by: Butch at November 15, 2005 06:07 PM (Gqhi9)
22
JSR,
I have never been in combat so I don't have that experience. After years of big game hunting(deer and elk), I can tell you that yes, the .223 Remington will kill a deer if you pick your shot, but so will a .22 rimfire for that matter. And you have to remember that the ammo required by the Geneva Convention is much less effective than hunting ammo.
I would consider it unethical to hunt even small whitetail deer with a .223 in FMJ as it does not expand, and the speed of the bullet means it makes a small entry and exit hole. If the vitals are not engaged, then the game will likely escape. I would assume the same applies for people based on my readings, including Blackhawk Down, where the Delta Force members generally used modified M-14's in .308 cal. Just my thoughts.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 06:12 PM (rUyw4)
23
Jesusland,
Good point. However, I am an avid hunter as well, and where I live it is outright illegal to hunt anything with an FMJ for the exact reasons you said. Even large calibers must be soft-points or ballistics. FMJs and especially the armor piercing M855s and SS109s issued to our troops do not have good wound ballistics; in and out leaving a .22 caliber hole. To hell with this Geneva crap. Lets give our guys the nasty shit. The insurgents don't do us any favors. Think about how moronic all of this is: you have to kill a deer quickly using excellent ammo, but lets give the insurgents a chance by using crap ammo. Although, I don't think it would be a very pleasant death bleeding out from numerous small caliber wounds...That thought actually pleases me greatly when applied to insurgents. Anyway, I like the M16/5.56mm very much. I simply wouldn't want to lug a Vietnam-era M14 into close-quarters combat. For sniping...thats a different tool for a different job.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:31 PM (CtVG6)
24
Oh yeah. .45s rule. Especially the H&K.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:37 PM (CtVG6)
25
JSR,
I would never suggest the Vietnam era M-14's, but I like the Springfield Armory Socoms, which are modified M-14's with short barrels and synthetic stocks configured for all the modern bells and whistles. They are awesome! And I still love my Colt .45 Combat Commander.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 06:42 PM (rUyw4)
26
Hague convention, actually. Hague convention requires FMJ.
I have to wonder if our Spec Ops guys ever skirt that. If you've got a suppressed 9mm or .45, I'd hate to compound the subsonic velocity with a dud bullet.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 15, 2005 06:59 PM (pFjwZ)
27
The Blackwater guys can use whatever kinds of ammunition they want. Rock on.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 07:43 PM (CtVG6)
28
All,
One vital point everyone seems to have missed is that current doctrine isn't that the round kill the enemy, but that you wound him. The theory is that a wounded enemy's comrads in arms will try to drag him back to medical care, thus tying up more soldiers than a dead body would.
It makes a certain kind of sense, but I think that theory went out the door when we started fighting people who consider suicide bombers a good tactic.
You or I would want to get a wounded comrade to the surgeon, and so would have a Red Army soldier. The 'Splodeydope loving screaming Islamonazi fanatics don't care.
The only answer for them is to put them on the dirt hard, and make sure they don't get up.
Time to pull out of the Hague Convention. If our enemy can use suicide bombers disguised as civilians, I don't see why we can't use hollow-points.
Posted by: Mack the Knife at November 15, 2005 08:50 PM (PH2Nw)
29
I said: "I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised."
To which SayUncle repied: "I disagree. They are quite reliable and fun to shoot."
Yeah, and I'm the fucking pope. Fun is one thing, dead because your weapon jammed is another. When I was in Iraq during Desert Storm, I picked up a folding stock AK from a bunker, (never fired, only dropped once), and kept that handy, because most of the time, I couldn't even chamber a round in my M16 without using the forward assist, even right after cleaning it.
"However, the tight tolerances (which make them more accurate than a lot of other battle rifles) are easy to gunk up when there's no time for cleaning."
Yeah, which gets soldiers dead. The M14 suffered from dust too, but not as much, and is about twice as accurate.
"The POF gas mechanism would change that."
But the bolt carrier would still get stuck in the upper. Nothing solved.
I said: "The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard."
He said: "Not quite."
Yes, quite. Just ask someone who's been there, or read their blogs. It takes multiple rounds to put someone down, especially if they're drugged up.
"It is quite useless coming out of the 14.5 inch barrel most troops use. The 20 inch version is quite effective."
That's only a velocity difference of about 500 fps, which doesn't make that great a difference. It's a bullet for shooting prarie dogs and coyotes, not someone who is trying to kill you.
"The other hindrance is that the military uses FMJs over JHPs due to some war rule."
If FMJ isn't going to penetrate, hollow points sure as hell won't.
Now for something completely different.
JJ asked: "And I'll ask for the 3rd time, just what the hell is wrong with the .308 Winchester cartridge?"
It's a tad on the heavy side, so it takes up a lot of weight and space per round. It's so powerful, weapons have to be heavier and more robust. Follow-up shots are not as fast. Other than that, I love it. I have a CETME, which I love to shoot, but it's a bit much for combat, though I'd carry it with a cinderblock tied to it before I'd pick up a piece of shit M16. By the way, the M14 is a great weapon, and doesn't cost $1000.00 each like someone said earlier; they were paid for long ago and there are still tons of them in the arsenals. All they need is a scope mount and they're good to go.
Now for something completely the same.
Jack's Smirking Revenge said: "...weapon characteristics (accuracy, reliability) are give and take, plain and simple."
No, they're not. The H&K G3 is capable of MOA accuracy with a scope and good ammo, and will go about 2000 rounds, by my experience, without cleaning. The M16 can do MOA, but needs cleaned ALL THE DAMN TIME. My M16 would fire about three rounds at best. If I had needed it, really needed it, I would have been dead.
"If you make the M16 as rugged and reliable as the AK, you will sacrifice accuracy. No way around that. Simple give and take."
I shot a MOA AK just last week. The only thing special about it was that it was built to American standards, not ComBloc, and had a McMillan chrome lined barrel. So, no. And how do you explain sub-MOA Druganov sniper rifles? Just because it's ugly doesn't mean it doesn't work. Sorry, but again, no.
"Second, I personally know a former Navy Seal and a Green Beret who have both told me that as long as you concentrate on proper shooting technique (front sight, press), the 5.56mm answers the mail every time. You can pick headshots with it with no problem."
Sure, with a clear shot at an unarmored target. People being shot at tend to hide behind cover, the least of which will stop a tiny bullet. Mass matters. I can make a headshot with my .22 at 100 yards, and it will likely be lethal too.
"Fallujah was headshot central because of Marines with ACOGs and M16A4s."
One per squad, covering windows and doorways, waiting for headshots. DM's are not to be confused with the average infantryman.
"The only problem with that round is the KIND of round our troops are forced to use. Forget all this FMJ crap. We need soft points and ballistic tips over there."
Which would do even worse at penetrating cover.
"The new Black Hills 77gr. is nasty and will change some negative opinions for sure."
Still just a varmint round.
"Some people act like the 6.8 is some miracle round that will kill a human outright even if the round grazes them. Not the case."
Let's see, a heavier bullet at an almost equal velocity means more retained energy at longer ranges. Hardly miraculous, but better than a prarie dog popper.
"The M16/5.56mm has a lot of advantages that most people overlook."
I never considered a chronically unreliable weapon any sort of advantage, unless it's the enemy's, but no such luck, they carry AK's, which go bang EVERY TIME.
"Ponder this: If some maniac walked into a shopping mall when you happened to be there and started firing an M4 at people, would you say 'OH, thats only a 5.56mm exiting through a 14.5 inch barrel, honey. We have nothing to worry about.'A bullet is a bullet is a bullet..."
Jesus H.. That's about teh silliest strawman as I've ever seen. Well, if I'm ever shot at by an M4, I won't worry too much, because it'll jam after about three shots, and I'll walk over and shove it up the shooter's ass. Now ponder this: You're in combat, and someone fires an AK at you and it goes "BANGBANGBANGBANG", et cetera ad infinitum, and you raise your M16 to return fire and it goes "click". Better be good at SPORTS there, sport, because if not, you're about to get your own shiny new flag-drapped box to ride home in. I'll take a well made AK any day, and I'll eat your lunch.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:55 PM (0yYS2)
30
Well, if I were a fanatic i would be kamakazing myself against allied forces too.
You know your infedel enemies have inferior weapons and ammunition that will only wound or piss you off, and if it looks bad enough you get to be arrested and handled with kiddy gloves, fed 3 meals a day, watch TV and other acts of torture in prison where your brothers run the risk of infedal female enemy touching you or taking pictures of you in your underwear and being lead by a leash. If they truly hate you they might even sit in your lap and run their fingers through your hair.
Hell sign me up for that kind of torture!
Seriously though.
Politicians have made it policy not to allow our warrios to decimate our enemies with ammo and weapons that actually kill.
Because golly gee whiz, that is mean!
On a side note
Me with my H&K USP .45 and 30 rounds Vs oak tree with 8inch base = tree stump =)
Posted by: Mr_e_m_t at November 15, 2005 09:57 PM (j68Ui)
31
Improbulus,
I was giving the pro's and cons on m16 .223's Vs m14 .308's.
While i agree with about 98% of what you said, you missed my points.
The m-14's cost money.
They were at one point in time paid for, even if we have an unlimited surplus of them now as you say.
And currently right now if you go to gunbroker.com or any other website you choose to look up the average price of m14's Vs m16's, my point still holds water that the cost is still around a thousand bucks and m16's cost about half as much.
Concerning the weight of the ammunition.
You really want to add a pro onto .45's and .308's Vs 9mm and .223's consider this.
The 5 rounds of 9mm or .223 it takes to bring down one terrorist weigh more then the one round from a .45 or .308
Posted by: Mr_e_m_t at November 15, 2005 10:25 PM (j68Ui)
32
There is an old saying: people buy 1911 pistols for the .45 round, people buy 9mm's for the pistol's features. I have a .40 USP, no problems at all after a few hundred rounds, not a single jam, etc. I have heard that some MP units are using .40 SIGs now, and of course "spec ops" units use the Mark 23 USP in .45. I say dump the Beretta and go w/ the USP.
The AK-47 borrowed *heavily* from the M-1 design (as well as the German Sturmgewehr rifles). The M-1 trigger group is very similar to the AK's; modern weapon design all goes back to the Garand, which Gen. Patton loved.
Posted by: Darius_LaMonica at November 16, 2005 12:02 AM (S3UBA)
33
Something is wrong with this information. I spent 10 years in the USMCR; when I left in '98 I was the STA (now called Scout/Sniper) Platoon Sgt. of 2/24. Some things that appear wrong:
"10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect."
Marines now use the M40A3 sniper rifle, an upgrade on the A1 that we had (which were upgrades of the Vietnam era M40's.) Similar to the m24 in that they are based on the Remington 700; different in that they are hand assembled by Marine Corps armorers and have different stocks, scopes, barrels, scope mounts, floor plates, etc. The M40 series is .308 only.
"Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour
in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100."
Carlos Hathcock, although the most widely known Marine sniper, didn't have the most confirmed kills in Vietnam. (Chuck Mawhinney had more.) This should NOT be viewed as criticism of Hathcock's record.
"2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun"
When I was in this was the M249 Squad AUTOMATIC (not assault) Weapon. I don't think model numbers go backwards. Not drum fed: Either from a belt (which is normally held in a drum-like plastic holder that clips to the bottom) or from an M16 magazine (although not reliably).
Marines know infantry weapons well. I can't see an actual Marine making mistakes about the weapons (although many Marines outside of the scout-sniper community wouldn't recognize the name Mawhinney).
Posted by: D. Paulus at November 16, 2005 06:17 AM (iBRdq)
34
If FMJ isn't going to penetrate, hollow points sure as hell won't
Penetration isn't the issue, stopping power is. The lightweight bullet (not penetration) is why the 5.56 isn't as good as the 7.62. If it was just about penetration, 9mm would be better than a 45ACP and we know that's not the case.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 09:00 AM (CDrd/)
35
This article has been posted elsewhere and debunked thoroughly.
Posted by: jlb at November 16, 2005 11:08 AM (KP+cN)
36
This letter by a suposed Marine is rather full of crap.
Here is a responce to it from someone who is in the know. It was writen by a 1SG White
>1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy
2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more
popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also.
****
Where is a Marine getting experience with the M4? They are very limited
in the Corps with the only large number in use with Force Recon units
and Det-1. Both units use the M4A1. Most of the rest of the Corps is
using the M16A4.
The reports coming out of Iraq actually read this way with regards to
reliability:
> The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and
> reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the
> weapon after pulling it out of the dirt ("like you can do with the AK"
> was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability.
> This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by
> the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was
> a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.
*****
> They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert
environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the
cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.
******
Here we go again....."Stopping power is such a subjective thing. This
is from the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report:
> It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm
> (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were
> some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced
> or desired "better knock-down power" or a larger caliber bullet did
> not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements
> and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
> procedures (TTPs) - controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and
> head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most
> that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the
> target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were
> reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
> shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with
> targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with
> proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition
> is lethal in close and long range.
And a bit more on lethality:
> Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning
> ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored
> individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many
> different responses from "I shot him in the gut and he ran away", "I
> had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him", to "I shot him in the
> chest and he went down" and "I shot him in the head and he dropped on
> the spot". There are many different views on the lethality of this
> round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more
> stopping power), to "We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition.
> It is satisfying the operational need." One brigade of soldiers
> interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality
> of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target
> acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle
> marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied
> with the round's performance/ terminal effects.
>
> Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to
> standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be
> conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military
> 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal
> performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the
> engineering information, a new round should be type classified and
> made available.
The complete report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm>
*******
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
*****
I have heard nothing about random autopsies on insurgents. I rather
doubt that this is happening due to considerations for the perceptions
of the Iraqi people. There would be a huge outcry not only on Al
Jezerra but in our press that we were "mutilating" the enemy dead....
*****
>2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun.
Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming
problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that fun in the middle of
a firefight).
******
First off, it's the M249 SAW and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed.
Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be
mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before,
but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this
weapon. Also most units are buying the nylon bags to carry the belts in
because they don't rattle and fall off like the plastic box magazines,
*******
>3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit
multiple times and still in the fight.
*******
Well the M9 has had all kinds of problems with the aftermarket magaines
the military is buying, but the author leaves this out. It's been
documented in many offical AARs that the Checkmate brand magazines are
junk, yet they haven't been recalled and soldiers and Marines are still
having problems with them.
********
>4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
*******
The Marines are using the Benelli 1014 shotgun. They may still field
the Mossberg in some quantity. Hate to bust the author's bubble, but
shotguns are used to breech. With the restrictive rules of engagement,
rifles and precise shooting is the order of the day for clearing
operations. Buckshot and slugs are hard to aquire in country and I have
a friend who said they used birdshot to scare people who approached too
close to convoys.
********
>5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30
cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
******
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.
*******
>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>
>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
******
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.
>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.
*******
> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
******
Not true at all.
*******
>
The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
********
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.
********
>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
*******
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.
********
>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
********
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.
*******
>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
********
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.
....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.
******
> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
******
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........
*******
>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
*********
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??
It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.
Jeff
cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
******
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.
*******
>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>
>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
******
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.
>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.
*******
> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
******
Not true at all.
*******
>
The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
********
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.
********
>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
*******
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.
********
>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
********
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.
*******
>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
********
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.
....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.
******
> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
******
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........
*******
>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
*********
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??
It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.
JeffPosted by: gunnut at November 16, 2005 11:34 AM (PZ/ZS)
37
This letter by a suposed Marine is rather full of crap.
Here is a responce to it from someone who is in the know. It was writen by a 1SG White
>1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy
2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more
popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also.
****
Where is a Marine getting experience with the M4? They are very limited
in the Corps with the only large number in use with Force Recon units
and Det-1. Both units use the M4A1. Most of the rest of the Corps is
using the M16A4.
The reports coming out of Iraq actually read this way with regards to
reliability:
> The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and
> reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the
> weapon after pulling it out of the dirt ("like you can do with the AK"
> was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability.
> This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by
> the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was
> a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.
*****
> They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert
environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the
cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.
******
Here we go again....."Stopping power is such a subjective thing. This
is from the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report:
> It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm
> (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were
> some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced
> or desired "better knock-down power" or a larger caliber bullet did
> not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements
> and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
> procedures (TTPs) - controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and
> head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most
> that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the
> target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were
> reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
> shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with
> targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with
> proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition
> is lethal in close and long range.
And a bit more on lethality:
> Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning
> ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored
> individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many
> different responses from "I shot him in the gut and he ran away", "I
> had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him", to "I shot him in the
> chest and he went down" and "I shot him in the head and he dropped on
> the spot". There are many different views on the lethality of this
> round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more
> stopping power), to "We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition.
> It is satisfying the operational need." One brigade of soldiers
> interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality
> of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target
> acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle
> marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied
> with the round's performance/ terminal effects.
>
> Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to
> standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be
> conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military
> 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal
> performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the
> engineering information, a new round should be type classified and
> made available.
The complete report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm>
*******
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
*****
I have heard nothing about random autopsies on insurgents. I rather
doubt that this is happening due to considerations for the perceptions
of the Iraqi people. There would be a huge outcry not only on Al
Jezerra but in our press that we were "mutilating" the enemy dead....
*****
>2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun.
Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming
problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that fun in the middle of
a firefight).
******
First off, it's the M249 SAW and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed.
Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be
mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before,
but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this
weapon. Also most units are buying the nylon bags to carry the belts in
because they don't rattle and fall off like the plastic box magazines,
*******
>3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit
multiple times and still in the fight.
*******
Well the M9 has had all kinds of problems with the aftermarket magaines
the military is buying, but the author leaves this out. It's been
documented in many offical AARs that the Checkmate brand magazines are
junk, yet they haven't been recalled and soldiers and Marines are still
having problems with them.
********
>4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
*******
The Marines are using the Benelli 1014 shotgun. They may still field
the Mossberg in some quantity. Hate to bust the author's bubble, but
shotguns are used to breech. With the restrictive rules of engagement,
rifles and precise shooting is the order of the day for clearing
operations. Buckshot and slugs are hard to aquire in country and I have
a friend who said they used birdshot to scare people who approached too
close to convoys.
********
>5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30
cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
******
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.
*******
>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>
>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
******
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.
>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.
*******
> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
******
Not true at all.
*******
>
The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
********
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.
********
>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
*******
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.
********
>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
********
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.
*******
>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
********
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.
....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.
******
> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
******
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........
*******
>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
*********
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??
It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.
Jeff
cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
******
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.
*******
>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>
>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
******
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.
>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.
*******
> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
******
Not true at all.
*******
>
The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
********
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.
********
>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
*******
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.
********
>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
********
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.
*******
>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
********
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.
....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.
******
> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
******
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........
*******
>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
*********
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??
It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.
JeffPosted by: gunnut at November 16, 2005 11:35 AM (PZ/ZS)
38
Okay Uncle, whatever you say, penetration doesn't matter. Sure thing. Look, let me 'splain it real simple for you. Penetration and so called "stopping power" is a function of kinetic energy, which is measured in pound/feet, which is calculated by velocity squared, multiplied by weight in grains, divided by 450240. A 55 grain 5.56 bullet at 3241 FPS muzzle velocity has 1283 lb/ft of energy, while a 122 grain 7.62x39 bullet at 2396 FPS muzzle velocity has 1555 lb/ft of energy.
The "inferior" commie round actually has about 18% better energy at the muzzle, and because of the mass of the heavier round, will not lose velocity as rapidly as the lighter bullet at extended ranges. The only advantage a light, fast bullet has is that it will have a flatter trajectory, and at optimum velocity, will transfer more of its energy to the target, causing more damage, which is what people call "stopping power".
This is fine if you're shooting prarie dogs out in the field, but people are a bit tougher than prarie dogs, and tend to not stand out in the open while you shoot at them; rather, they hide behind cover, and often wear protective gear, which will stop light bullets more readily than heavy bullets, since light bullets will transfer all of their energy to the first thing they hit and disintegrate, which is why the Russian 5.45 round was designed with a tungsten penertrator core.
The best way to stop someone, i.e. kill or incapacitate them, is to get a solid hit on a vital area with a round that carries enough energy to cause significant trauma. There is no perfect round, but there are many that are far better than the 5.56, because combat isn't prarie dog shooting, nor is it bear hunting; it requires a combinated of characteristics to allow the soldier to make accurate shots at combat distances against targets that may be behind cover, penetrate the cover, and kill the target. Because soldiers have to carry lots of ammo, it should be as lightweight as possible, but it still needs to be powerful enough to do the job, without being so powerful as to make the weapon uncontrollable in rapid fire combat situations. Because of this, neither the 5.56 nor the 7.62 NATO is ideal, so a good compromise must be found.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:36 AM (0yYS2)
39
improbulus maximus, I own and shoot "tricked out" AR15's. I even own a registered short barreled rifle. Not only do I shoot them and own them, I have the knowledge and the skill to use them. I spend more time on the range training every month then my local PDs swat team does.
Yer post is so far off to anyone that really knows about the AR15/M16 family of guns that it is funny. Thanks for the laugh.
To those that think that modern military ammo is designed to "wound" rather then kill. Yer also way off base. That is not in fact true. Visit http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm and you'll get a lot of real info on military ammo as well as various other ammo used in the M16/AR15. As well as terminal ballistics data and how the round reacts, there are even gel test photos. The truth is that current US military spec ammo causes a very devistating wound though fragmentation of the bullet when it hits flesh.
The Hague conventions(not the Geneva convetions like many think) outlaw the use of "expanding" ammo by the regular military forces of a country for use against the regular military forces of another country. The United States did not infact sign that particular part of the Hague conventions. We can and in some cases do use expanding ammo in anti-terrorism operations.
Posted by: gunut at November 16, 2005 11:49 AM (PZ/ZS)
40
Mr EMT wrote: "...The m-14's cost money.
They were at one point in time paid for, even if we have an unlimited surplus of them now as you say."
They were paid for forty years ago, so it's a moot point.
"And currently right now if you go to gunbroker.com or any other website you choose to look up the average price of m14's Vs m16's, my point still holds water that the cost is still around a thousand bucks and m16's cost about half as much."
Which means exactly nothing. The retail market has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual cost of procurement for the government.
"Concerning the weight of the ammunition.
You really want to add a pro onto .45's and .308's Vs 9mm and .223's consider this.
The 5 rounds of 9mm or .223 it takes to bring down one terrorist weigh more then [sic] the one round from a .45 or .308"
Hey that's great if you can get one kill per shot, but it's obvious you've never been in combat because on the average hundreds of rounds are expended per kill. Weight is a factor as much as power. The 5.56 is too weak, the 7.62 NATO is too heavy. A quick ballistics calculation will show that a bullet of about around .25-28 caliber, of about 100 grains, at about 3000 FPS will have more energy than the 5.56, without the heavy recoil and weight of the 7.62 NATO. There are serveral cartridges, such as the .243 Winchester, the .257 Roberts, 6mm Remington, 7/08, etc.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:51 AM (0yYS2)
41
'whatever you say, penetration doesn't matter'
I didn't say that. I said penetration does not equal stopping power. It's a factor but not the most important one. And I am not saying that the 5.56 is better or that the commie round is inferior.
Per your own example of 7.62 v. 5.56, if I shot them into gel, which would penetrate further? The 5.56. However, which is more likely to incapacitate a person? The 7.62.
I build, own and shoot both ARs and AKs. Like them both. But if the SHTF, I'd grab the AR. And the reason is it's as reliable but more accurate. That is until I get around to getting that M1A.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 12:17 PM (CDrd/)
42
gunnut said: "improbulus maximus, I own and shoot "tricked out" AR15's. I even own a registered short barreled rifle. Not only do I shoot them and own them, I have the knowledge and the skill to use them. I spend more time on the range training every month then my local PDs swat team does."
That's not saying a lot, considering that I outshoot the local SWAT team on a bad day.
"Yer post is so far off to anyone that really knows about the AR15/M16 family of guns that it is funny. Thanks for the laugh."
Sure thing there Rambo. I only spent ten years in the Army, most of it as an armorer, and have owned and shot more guns that you'll ever see, including in combat, at the range, and hunting, so I don't know as much as you, who obviously have sooooo much more experience.
"To those that think that modern military ammo is designed to "wound" rather then kill. Yer also way off base."
You mean "than" kill? And who said anything about wounding?
"That is not in fact true."
Nobody said it was.
"Visit http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm and you'll get a lot of real info on military ammo as well as various other ammo used in the M16/AR15. As well as terminal ballistics data and how the round reacts, there are even gel test photos. The truth is that current US military spec ammo causes a very devistating wound though fragmentation of the bullet when it hits flesh."
Next time a block of ballistic gelatin is shooting at me without the benefit of cover, I'll remember that, but when some jihadotard is behind a car or in a building taking pot shots at me, I want something to penetrate his cover and still have the energy and mass to take him out. Ever wonder why the .50 caliber BMG works so well?
"The Hague conventions(not the Geneva convetions like many think) outlaw the use of "expanding" ammo by the regular military forces of a country for use against the regular military forces of another country. The United States did not infact sign that particular part of the Hague conventions. We can and in some cases do use expanding ammo in anti-terrorism operations."
Whether the ammo expands or not isn't the issue
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:28 PM (0yYS2)
43
SayUncle, still not getting it, said: "Per your own example of 7.62 v. 5.56, if I shot them into gel, which would penetrate further? The 5.56."
That's a negatory; the one with greater ability to retain energy would penetrate further. The one with greater mass would retain energy better, meaning the 7.62.
"However, which is more likely to incapacitate a person? The 7.62."
Well duh.
"I build, own and shoot both ARs and AKs. Like them both. But if the SHTF, I'd grab the AR."
Good choice if you want to hear click instead of BANG!
"And the reason is it's as reliable but more accurate."
I hope you never have to exchange fire for real with someone.
"That is until I get around to getting that M1A."
That's the smartest thing you've said.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:49 PM (0yYS2)
44
Perhaps two hours ago I saw a program on the Military Channel that compared the M-16 with the AK-47. The M-16 was determined to be more accurate and more controlable using the fully automatic function than the AK. The AK was determined to be more durable and dependable than the M-16. The 7.62 Russian round was determined to be much better in all respects except one when compared to the 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56mm had a flatter trajectory than the 7.62.
The 7.62 Russian would penetrate 8 inches of solid pine wood but the 5.56mm would not. The 7.62 shattered a concrete cinder block, but the 5.56 put a tiny hole in it. The block was left intact. I know which gun I would choose given these two choices.
However, not 15 minutes ago, on Fox News, I saw two soldiers walking and one of them had a modified M-14 in .308 cal. Now that is the right choice of them all.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 03:14 PM (rUyw4)
45
IM,
7.62X51 penetrated 64cm, 7.62X39 penetrated 33cm, and 5.56X45 at 36cm. By your rational, that would mean the 7.62X39 has the least amount of stopping power, which I think we agree it does not.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 03:23 PM (CDrd/)
46
SayUncle,
Gel is supposed to mimic human flesh? and penetration is just one aspect of knockdown power. The others being bullet diameter and hydrostatic shock. I think we all know that the 7.62 Russian is a better all-around bullet than the 5.56 NATO.
The M-16 is surely a better looking and better made rifle than the Kalishnakov, but some AK variants approach the technology of the M-16, and are becoming more popular in civilian quarters. Frankly, I like them both.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 04:44 PM (rUyw4)
47
I concur, I like them both.
Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 04:50 PM (CDrd/)
48
go to this website
http://www.survivalblog.com/
and search for the three headings below.
"Two Letters Re: Lessons from the Big Sand Box:"
"Letter from "Doug Carlton" Re: Discrediting the Lessons from the Big Sand Box:"
orginal letter
"Lessons from the Big Sand Box: Firearms, Gear, and Tactics in Iraq "
that letter had some errors in it, according to others.
Posted by: cube at November 16, 2005 08:15 PM (wHR3Y)
49
Fascinating stuff, but two things bother me.
1) The post reveals info that could affect operational security for US troops(i.e., poor enemy electronic security, US responses to enemy tactics). If the bad guys are using email and the web to plan their attacks, how do we know that they're not reading Jawa Report (or sites that link to it)? What happened to the idea that "The Enemy is listening?"
2) The bad guys are using resources unwittingly provided by a US company (Google) to gain intellegence on US positions. I might be a poor, dumb civilian, but I trust that Google Earth is fully cooperating with our spooks to provide the worst possible service for the jihadists in Iraq. Failing that, why aren't they blacking out pictures of sensitive areas? I don't really need satellite photos of Iraq and I sure don't need them it means Americans might die as a result.
Other than that, the post was the most informative and useful bit of Iraq reporting I've seen since the war began.
I just wish that the guys with in the field had more say in how the war is being run than the crooks in Gucchi loafers back in Washington. I think that Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, but, if a majority of ground-pounders say otherwise, I'll shut up and support them to the hilt.
Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 09:07 PM (G03bU)
50
Students of gun history will recall that the M1911 .45 ACP was specifically designed to put down drugged-out Anti-American Islamist fanatics operating from equipment-eating terrain (the Moros in the Philippines in the 1900s). As a proven tool for bringing jihadis closer to paradise, I say bring it back.
Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 09:33 PM (G03bU)
51
Tom,
God, I wish more people thought the way you do. Let's win the war and then argue about it when it's done. We are costing lives the way we are doing it right now. Everyone needs to get behind the troops right now, and win this damn war.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:16 PM (rUyw4)
52
Wow! If the M16 is as worthless as IP says it is, why has the weapon been in service for 40 years? I'd also really like to see you walk up and "stick an M4 up their ass because it'll jam after three rounds". OK. That would be a neat trick. If the hadjis ever invade the U.S., I'll remember your post and just throw it away and grab a kitchen knife or something. What is the stopping power and terminal ballistics on a kitchen knife anyway? Blah, blah, blah...A bullet is a bullet. And the average infantryman can carry twice as many 5.56mm than 7.62mm. I'll take my chances with a "critter" round rather than run out of ammo. I also love the Springfield SOCOM 16, but it costs $1400-$1800 without optics of any kind.
Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 16, 2005 10:24 PM (CtVG6)
53
JSR,
I bought a Socom 16 about 2 months ago and it is the finest rifle of its kind I have ever fired. I traded a CAR-15 in on it and still owed a chunk of change, but I have no regrets. It is that impressive a rifle, I love it.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 11:37 PM (rUyw4)
54
“Hey that's great if you can get one kill per shot, but it's obvious you've never been in combat because on the average hundreds of rounds are expended per kill.” ~improb
Wow.
You know something, you are right.
I have never been in any combat situation where hundreds of rounds were used to try to kill one person.
Has anyone else?
However, I hear that the insurgents could probably make such a claim as to having to shoot hundreds of rounds to try to hit the broad side of a barn.
You are the first source I have ever heard claim we have stockpiles of m-14Â’s rotting away that were acquired 40 years ago.
You knock the m-16 family guns worse then anyone I have seen. Implying the gun is so massively riddled with malfunctions that you will hear click instead of bang when you pick it up.
You would think someone who has 10 years in a gun cage would have an idea how long the m-16 and its family have been used in engaged battles. What, nearly 40 years now? According to you it is a miracle we have managed to kill any enemy with the standard issue carbine.
(I write this all out before reading JackÂ’s similar thoughts.)
Now donÂ’t get me wrong. I think the gun itself is crap for a man killer. But that is purely my preference. Either way you cut it, the gun kills and the gun makes due.
Are there better guns? Yes, of course, if you want to pay for it.
However, no one is going to agree on what is the best all-around gun that is good for any situation you get into that you have to shoot your way out of.
Bean counters still run our nations defenses and as every law enforcement and military personal knows, your life is in the hands of the lowest government contract bidder for the equipment you have.
Your claims and disgruntled nature make me suggest you use a new brand of toilet paper.
It will brighten your day.
Posted by: Mr_EMT at November 17, 2005 11:16 AM (Cnlo0)
55
I do find it amusing that Uncle and IM are continuing to argue in circles even after gunnut posted some quite germane information that they both pretty much ignored.
Can the 5.56 be improved? Sure as heck-I think the Mk 262 75gr bullet should be stuck in the case neck of every round coming out of Lake City starting tomorrow. It'd be a big improvement.
Personally, I think the Chief of Staff of the Army, with heavy urging from the Army Ordinance Board and American weapons makers, did the US Army and the rest of NATO a huge disfavor back in the 1950s when he overrode the testing group at Ft Benning, which recommended the FN FAL chambered in 7x43mm (nee .280 Brit), in favor of the M-14 in 7.62x51.
Not sure who made the decision, probably the same folks, to adopt the M-60 instead of the MAG-58. US troops were saddled with the M-60 for 40 years, until it was replaced by the M-240B, which is simply an MAG-58 with forward heatshield handguards to cover the gas tube and barrel.
The majority of the weapons on the battlefield today are, for the most part, minor variations on designs that are at least 40 years old. Even the relatively new ones-the M249 and M9-are over 20 years old. Small arms development has pretty much plateaued, with only incremental improvements, mostly due to improved synthetic materials.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at November 18, 2005 10:35 PM (bwBea)
56
Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.
Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:01 AM (U6IY5)
57
Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.
Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:01 AM (U6IY5)
58
Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.
Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:02 AM (U6IY5)
59
Hmmmm....lots of arguements going on here
about stuff that really doesn't matter. I
like the original posters information about
the Mossberg shotgun. In a defensive action,
where I am defending myself or my family, I'll
sure be glad I got that buckshot sprayer in
my hands! That's what counts, to me at least.
Posted by: MeNotRambo at November 19, 2005 08:19 AM (+NyDC)
60
Can the author point me to a single acknowledged source that shows Chechens are in Iraq?
Just one.
Posted by: 2Wolves at November 20, 2005 06:44 PM (IWoOa)
61
Wow lots of problems here from everyone,
308 is NOT 762nato, run a couple of thousand rounds through a 762nato rifle and you will kill yourself, they have the same physical dimensions but a 308 has like 6000lbs more maximun pressure in sammi spec.
762russ bullet drop is horrible
556 was designed for among several others to have less shooter flinching
(762nato while less kick then 308 is more then 3006 and it will beat you up, let alone the added carry weight of BOTH the ammo and M14 even with a polymer stock)
50bmg WILL take out a vehicle(in the proper round) incinderary and or DU round.
Give me a 6.5 M16, easily converted by replacing upper and mag, weight carry will only increase by ~1lb and I would have the best of both worlds, light recoil, great stopping and high pentration(penatrating your surounding btw not the human)
Side note, I would really love to have the beta mags deployed for my spotter, nothing like having 100 rounds locked and loaded.
and BTW my personal experiance with pretty much every cal you can think of mil and civ I would still take 30'06(m1 ball) over them all .30 cal centerfire cart.
America used to be a country of rifleman, IT IS NOT ANY more (thanks lately to ms brady) Learn how to shot before you get into serivce, give your kids air rifles, 22's etc.
Posted by: zendick at November 21, 2005 04:42 AM (q0Zfe)
62
Security breach!!! Farking anti-war liberal idiots have penetrated your defenses. You are pwned! All your common sense and logic belong to us. That is all.
Posted by: dumbocrat at November 21, 2005 05:15 AM (JhALj)
63
For those of you that are worried about "Google Earth", don't be.
"They use handheld GPS
units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead views of our positions."
This is an unjustified statement. Google Earth may have a "sattelite" image of military bases, but the images are 4 years old. In that ammount of time, things (units, temporary buildings, etc.) are moved. Besides, they do not need Google Earth to tell them where we have things positioned. They know exactly where everything is, because most of the buildings we work in have been there for many years before the war started. A lot of bases have higher terrain surrounding them, and the insurgents post on top of them and scope out the base, to include any civilian they capture coming off base (contracted employee) and torture them to get information. So "Google Earth" is the very last of our worries, but if they ever start using updated images (every 24 hours), then some precautions need to be made. (Blackouts, etc.)
Posted by: y0sh1 at November 21, 2005 05:29 AM (il1gF)
64
For the sake of our troops I seriously hope all of this is bullshit and deliberate misinfo
Posted by: sdffasd at November 21, 2005 05:40 AM (pQWPT)
65
A few things of note....
First Off
the m-16 is much more accurate in the hands of an average solider then the 308 , or 7.62. When the m-16 was adopted they had to revamp the rateing system becuse nearly every grunt was getting a marksman rateing.
haveing every solider carrying a 308 is great , well cept history shows us most cant handle the round.
Second , its not ONE 223 round , its three 223 rounds. EVERY solider in the US can put one 3 round burst of 223 into a target much more consistantly then a 3 round burst of 7.62.
I know you arm chair rambos are not going to suggest the average Rifleman should be running around trying to Lay down auto fire with a 308.
The m-16 has been killing people consistantly all over the globe for 40 years , You guys make it sound like is sheer luck all our soliders did not die a single well trained ak-47 carrying enemy.
There is a SIGNIFICANT effective range diffrence in the 7.62 and 223 rounds Our SEALS and special forces consistantly get in ranged combat with insurgents useing m4 carbines , the ak 47 simply can not return fire at any significant range. You guys can carry your ak-47 into battle and hope you can get close enough to hit somebody. There is a reason the Dragunoff was made , to extend the fire power of a combat unit , itis not even remotley a sniper rifle by western standerds.
Posted by: dshearn at November 21, 2005 05:59 AM (PPgRH)
66
"Improbulus Maximus" Is a TOTAL asslicking jerkoff
Posted by: Joey Boots at November 21, 2005 07:04 AM (Mq1+9)
67
M249 will accept a 50 round "drum" designed for us in the "ultimax" about 8 years ago. It has the same profile as the standard M16 clip for insertion. Several videos of this gun being fired from said clip exist. Apparently gun collectors don't like using belts when they can buy a clip and not cut their fingertips.
Posted by: prjindigo at November 21, 2005 07:43 AM (CARry)
68
It occurs to me that I read something like this in 1992? Maybe almost exactly like this?
I call fraud too... marine should know the difference between a point tipped .308 and a flat nose 7.x32... they teach em that.
Posted by: prjindigo at November 21, 2005 07:47 AM (CARry)
69
I read a few days ago that since we are not fighting against another state, we are fighting against a group of people, the hague convention, and maybe the geneva, im not sure, don't apply, as they are for wars between states. any of you guys read about the SMAW-NE? now THAT sounds like fun!!
Posted by: Veritas at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (EPEjt)
70
The differences between the 308 and 223 really stand out when you look what they do to a deer, which is usually around the size and weight of a man. Last year, A friend wounded a deer and his father ended up shooting a second one with his 223 by mistake while tracking the wounded one. I helped skin both. The 300 Savage round (basically an underpowered 30
had hit the deer in the front shoulder. Round blew through the entire right shoulder, bones and all, and ended up lodged just under the skin on the other side of the deer. expansion area was massive, when we gutted and skinned it the lungs were mush, and one entire shoulder was burger. His father shot the second deer with a hot-loaded .223 60grn-HP in the neck. Round punched through, severed the spine, and continued to punch through. No appreciable wound expansion, exit hole was the size of the round. In other words, if he hadn't hit the spine, that deer would have kept going.
Also, as far as accuracy comparing the two rounds, I'd say the 223 is more accurate in follow-up shots, less recoil. However, with the 308, you don't have to worry so much about followup shots, because once you hit your target, it is DONE.
My 2 cents.
had hit the deer in the front shoulder. Round blew through the entire right shoulder, bones and all, and ended up lodged just under the skin on the other side of the deer. expansion area was massive, when we gutted and skinned it the lungs were mush, and one entire shoulder was burger. His father shot the second deer with a hot-loaded .223 60grn-HP in the neck. Round punched through, severed the spine, and continued to punch through. No appreciable wound expansion, exit hole was the size of the round. In other words, if he hadn't hit the spine, that deer would have kept going.
Also, as far as accuracy comparing the two rounds, I'd say the 223 is more accurate in follow-up shots, less recoil. However, with the 308, you don't have to worry so much about followup shots, because once you hit your target, it is DONE.
My 2 cents.
Posted by: Eric at November 21, 2005 08:51 AM (fshIM)
71
Christ, I hope the terrorists (let's not dress that word and call them insurgents) don't read this and get new intel. Especially regarding American tactics and advantages.
Either way, I hope our troops get to come home soon. God bless.
Posted by: Mr. Nobody at November 21, 2005 08:54 AM (VNFc5)
72
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do have military experience in excess of 8 years. In that time I was an infantryman, armored cav scout, artillery fire direction specialist, commo tech, and commo guy in an army SF unit (12th GP). I also performed some non governmental military contracting when I got out. Read that the way you will. I was pretty well trained and experienced in combat tasks, but mostly sought after for the additional technical skills and breadth of my military experience. I don't consider myself an armorer by any means.
What I have found over the years, and read, is that opinions on the M16 family vary tremendously amongst even professional military men, to include those who saw combat.
I went to OCS with an 82nd airborne infantry vet who was in the invasion of Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm, and his opinion of the M16 (A2 or later) was that it was solid and served him well. He said he preferred it to the AKs he could have picked up and used.
In 12th group, the pro and con side included combat and non combat vets.
This is where I take a few pages from two of my favorite economists (Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams). "Everything in life is a trade off."
Using hundreds of rounds to get kills has a lot to do with the reluctance of even professional soldiers to kill. This is something the US military (especially the Marines) has made great strides in since WW2. There is also suppressive fire, covering fire, recon by fire, etc. This uses a lot of rounds. If you aren't carrying enough, you can't give enough covering fire to establish fire superiority and maneuver to inflict the most devastating fire.
So, plainly, bullet weight is an issue, and this is one reason why we use the 5.56.
Also, like it or not, the politicos have pushed, and are keeping, women in the military in large numbers, and expanded roles. Weapons the the FN FAL, G3, M14, etc. that are well favored by vets, the SF community, etc. just can not be handled/carried etc. by the majority of females.
I think there are better weapons than the M16, and there are better weapons than the AK47. Then again, it depends on your situation.
Cost is less of an issue these days. Troops get so tricked out with all kinds of expensive gear, and with the combat pay, logistics expenses, fancy laptops needed by the power point rangers in HQ, etc., the extra 500 dollars a rifle is really a minor expense. Given the expense of additional training, treating extra casualties, etc., we get what in TQM (total quality management) terms is a situation where you have to factor what it costs you NOT to do something (supply a better rifle). Stated another way, penny wise, pound foolish.
The M16 family is nowhere near as bad as some people here have made it seem. It has proven itself, repeatedly. It has flaws, compared to the mythical perfect weapon. It has situation dependent flaws compared to many other weapons. We can and should replace it, and probably the round, too, but then, that is about a 20 year fight in Congress to get past all of the special interests. We also have a lot of ammo, parts, and contracts now, so we modify and use what we have.
None of this is in a perfect world.
I can say, in training and "real life" I only had a m16 go bad on me once. It was a dog, and there was nothing I could do with it except turn it into the armorer and demand another one. No maintenance to a total field strip and beyond made it work more than a few rounds, and sometimes not even then. Save for that one, the rest all worked well, even in the field, even with sustained fire and not so frequent cleaning, even with blanks and blank adapters which REALLY gunk them up. I did not ever take my weapon to the Iraqi desert, but I do know that there are also better non liquid lubricants )forget the name) that, if used, eliminate almost all of the jam and gunk problems.
Again, the problem there is the military supply chain using what we have instead of spending an extra dollar a bottle for what works. Then again, if you look at history, there are plenty of cases, in all of the world, where the troops get screwed because of bad supply systems, political patronage, etc. In the War between the States, repeating rifles COULD have been procured much earlier, but it was thought that (besides the cost differential) that if troops could shoot faster, they'd use up all their ammo and be useless. Such thinking, really, bears little merit. Even a casual student of history can imagine any major battle like Gettysburg where only one side had been fully equipped with repeating rifles.
As far as the Chechens, and other things, that a poster asked for info on. I can't give you anything in writing, such as a news source. I can tell you that I was an invitee and attendee/participant in a DARPA conference in Feb 2005. It all revolved around solving tactical problems that are being seen in Iraq. We received many in depth briefings from very recently returned veterans of Iraq (officer and enlisted, from logistics through grunt), we were briefed in depth by the Marine commander of the battle of Fallujah.
SOme of the quick, unclassified things, discussed that might have some relevance included:
the IEDs are the big issue.
Iraqis have outsourced the insurgency. There are plenty of foreign fighters and Jihadists leavening the Iraqi ranks.
This includes Chechens, who fight like mercenaries, for relatively small amounts of money.
It also includes western mercs. A marine team nailed a sniper team, after it had killed more than 14 marines over several days. Upon examination, the bodies were found to have been recently discharged French Foreign Legion members. The tatoos were a tip off, and the investigation lead to dental records and a discussion with French authorities to verify identity. Evidently, they were being payed on a per kill basis.
No I can't source the above (and more). I have to trust that serving Pentagon officers, and the people who in some cases had only been home from Iraq a few weeks, weren't BSing the people who were there to help devise solutions to the problems they were encountering.
I did not hear any sustained griping about the M16 family. I heard some praise, especially from a pair of marine infantryman who each had a number of clear personal kills with their M16s. We discussed wound vectors, etc. I can mention this a bit more, but it really is beside the point.
On balance, the M16 is not an ideal weapon. It is a good, effective weapon. I would prefer a weapon that has the penetrating power of a m-1 Garand, with the weight and footprint of a MP-5, but since that won't happen, I guess there are trade offs to be made. Perhaps some day, the politicians will decide to defer buying several B-2 bombers or a couple of submarines, and use the money to buy the whole land forces a new combat rifle family.
Personally, and I forget the weapon name, but there is a SMG that is increasingly issued to the support troops least likely to see action as a cost saving measure (in European armies). It stores its ammou at a 90 degree angle in a clear plastic magazine. I would say adopt a generally consistent ammo type (aside from specialist weapons), but give your remfs a cut down, simplified, no whizz bang cheap version that they can keep slung on their backs until the crap hits the fan. At that point, it's all likely to be close in anyway. Let the grunts carry the more expensive, reliable, up market weapons. It would be nice if we went to a nice caseless ammo with disposable magazines. That alone would cut weight.
Also, politically, let's just stop troops from getting and bringing their own gear. SF teams are more renowned for this. I often took my own sidearm rather than what was issued. Many conventional units don't allow this. I read a lot about how servicemen in ww2 would be sent guns in their mail by concerned family and friends. Usually this was a sidearm. They could and did carry it. Now days, almost no such luck. I don't think there should be any such thing as an "authorized sidearm carrier."
ALL soldiers in a combat zone should be able to carry a sidearm, issued or not. The only caveat is that if you carry a non standard pistol caliber, you have to get your own ammo. Professional soldiers, and all of ours are supposed to be, should be entrusted with choosing and using the tools of the trade. Weapons are just tools, and we all have our preferences as to what feels right and does the job. There is no one answer, for anything. You don't tell your IT whiz that he can only use a specific company authorized mouse, and then only if one is issued to him. You should not tell your soldiers that, however useful and important a sidearm is in close quarters insurgency combat, only a few authorized carriers are permitted to use only official weapons. It's just stupid.
Then, this war, like all of our wars in 60+ years, does not make sense.
Posted by: Murf at November 21, 2005 09:05 AM (XfUdJ)
73
having beein iraq i can tell you this is clearly the bullshit work of some dude who either talked to a friend in the reserves and made all this up or just made it all up with no real input. SO many blaring inaccuracies and fabrications I don't even want to bother tearing it appart because I'm sure in one of the posts already here it's been done better than I would do.
Posted by: spacerat at November 21, 2005 09:10 AM (22fvw)
74
ok more details on how this is full of shit, first of all no one but idiot civilians who remember the 1960s think the m16/m4 is a piece of crap. It is an excellent rifle and works in nearly all situations as well as can be expected for a rifle. I have never had one jam in the field and can count the number of stories I've heard on one hand. As for the m14 being "reissued" I have NEVER seen one in use with a conventional unit and the entire US inventory of this weapon is only a few thousand units if I remember correctly. I have also never heard of a jamming problem in the SAW except when the weapon was damaged or improperly assembled. As another poster pounted out idealy we'd want a P90 for most iraq opeations but we can't pick a new rifle for every engagment nor do troops need another 15-20lbs of gear to carry just in case it gets to ranges 100m and under. Most of this is shit. Rest assured if half this shit was true every marine would be sending letters home to their congressman, teary emails to their church leaders, ect and it'd be all over the news. The fact that you've never heard of most of this before should be exceptional proof if it's bullshit content.
Posted by: spacerat at November 21, 2005 09:24 AM (22fvw)
75
The testosterone levels in here exceed the intelligence quotient by a vast amount.
The post by gunnut (11/16@11:34) is probably the most object observation made here.
I, personally, love the Barretta 9mm. It's very convenient for concealed carry, and affords 7 more chances to provide protection without carrying additional magazines.
When I was in the military I never experienced the jamming problems I see described here. Other people did, but then, I'm really into weapons maintenance. I tend to change the oil in my car, also. While everyone else was watching/arguing/bragging football or what have you, I was cleaning, polishing, and fitting my 16's guts. I could empty a mag without a jam.
The 7.62 NATO is, without a question, an overall superior round. However, that isn't what's issued on a regular basis. Let's fix what's broke and contain the testosterone crap to the TV room.
Posted by: Clay at November 21, 2005 09:30 AM (PDrw0)
76
*yawn* not this pile of shit again. It was BS the first time round in 92 and it's still BS today.
This sounds to me like a fanboy spouting off what he would like to see.
Pure fiction.
Posted by: bored at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (8buj8)
77
This has been floating around forever. There are several different versions of it.
It's a hoax.
Posted by: avtomat at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (wDI9X)
78
1) The few hundred feet per second difference between a 14.5" barrel and 20" barrel does have a significant impact of 5.56's wounding potential. This is because 5.56's prime woounding mechanism if fragmentation of the bullet which only reliably occurs at over 2700 fps. From a 14.5" barrel, 62 grain drops below this in under 100 yards. A 20" barrel reaches out to 200+ yards.
2) This is also to source of the sometimes poor comparison between the old 55 gr and a new 62 gr bullets. The 55 gr, from a 14.5" barrel, travels slightly farther before dropping below the "magic" 2700 fps. This is reversed for a 20" barrel.
3) The 77 gr. Mk262 remedies this by reliably fragmenting at much lower velocities and by maintaining its velocity much longer. Reports from people I personally trust put it's effective range out to about 600 yards.
4) "Personally, I think the Chief of Staff of the Army, with heavy urging from the Army Ordinance Board and American weapons makers, did the US Army and the rest of NATO a huge disfavor back in the 1950s when he overrode the testing group at Ft Benning, which recommended the FN FAL chambered in 7x43mm (nee .280 Brit), in favor of the M-14 in 7.62x51."
The M1 Garand was originally chambered in a .276/7mm round, but this was overruled due to the amount of .30-06 in storage. Also somewhat interesting is the similarity between the .280 Brit/7x43mm and the actual specs on the, now defunct, 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm).
5) The 6.8 SPC project has been dropped, reportedly because of the promise of the Mk262.
Posted by: Zcar at November 21, 2005 10:00 AM (Q1Yim)
79
M-16 M-16... Nice accurate rifle... Pain in the rear to clean in my oppinion. Ten minutes shooting saw me three hours cleaning in basic alone...
But if I got stuck on the battlefield with enemy shooting at me, just give me a Barret M-82 with a good scope. The recoil will probably hurt me... considering I'm small... But a fifty cal. antimaterial round has all the stopping power and penetration I'll ever need. Plus the thing's so loud that it's GOT to have an intimidation factor... Even for a drugged up Jihad maniac. (Imagine a line of Barrets instead of a line of M-4s or M-16s.) Not exactly a repeating rifle for putting in lots of shots... but hey. At least I know the first round I hit my target with... the target will NOT be getting up, unless he's immortal or something. (HEY! With a round bigger around than my thumb... I don't doubt it either.)
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (wjPJ9)
80
there is a reason that 90% of the worlds shooters (military, paramilitary, mercenary and criminal) use the AK-47 and not the M-16. The M-16 is a precision instrument and must be treated as one. It must be kept clean and used by a skilled operator. The AK is a farm implement. It is cheap, and it can be dropped in the mud and picked up by a farm boy and still used effectively.
Posted by: sliqjim at November 21, 2005 10:19 AM (eDywV)
81
So apparently most of the IEDs are detonated by cell phones. I know that here in the US, it's possible to build a relatively small cell phone jammer. Some people take them to the movies so that other people's cell phones won't interrupt. Why can't the military build jammers with 100 yard range (or whatever is required) and mount them on every vehicle we drive there?
The insurgents would switch to other detonation techniques, but we'd get a few weeks of easier travel, and we'd force them to use something less convenient.
Posted by: engineer23 at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (xbdSI)
82
So far as the 9mm and the .45 cal. go I never could understand why the military didn't adopt the .357 mag. as the sidearm. It's a great round with good accuracy and take down power. As for the M-16, I have used one many times. I was in a fire fight in Desert storm in which I fired over 400 rds. and never had jamming problems. I did however wish that the shells were not full metal jacket.
Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 11:29 AM (RLqJ7)
83
While the discussion-esque nature of this thread is frought with mainly how much things SUCK and lets go back to the "tried and true" few are offering solutions.
5.56 rounds are ass in urban combat since they were designed on the heels of antiquated "field" based, anti-personel style combat.
CLEARLY the munitions are the major factors here. Having been in close quaters jungle combat in the early 90s I can say with great authority there is NO SUCH THING as a clean environment.
Our top tier training needs to be supplemented with top tier weapons. The XM-8 and its OICW vatiants are doomed to fail mainly because of their lack of appropriate munitions for the tasks at hand.
This being said I recommend the following:
Sidearms & backup weps:
Immediate and mass issue of the tried and true 1911 style 45s or their handy german cousins.
MBR - Main Battle Rifles
Thats the thing - there are NOT main battles happening here, but incurstions and patrols.
Fire teams need to be mixed bags of UMP-45s, Shotties, AT LEAST one 240 and M14s.
Since 90% of AL Queda's revenue was magnified by the opium trade it is totally obvious these little monkeys are zooted and dusted. It is why the jihadists have little discipline, accuracy and mass lack of tactics.
When country hopping in the 90s nearly every enemy we faced was doped, and we RARELY uses our rifles opting for 45cal SMGS and HiCap 45s and 40s and oddly enough our knife skills were greatly raised as a result of the close quarters combat.
What does this mean today. We are boned. The Armalite and Fabrique Nationale companies have a choke hold on the branches with massive lobbies.
All is not lost:
Next year, however, as the new MBRs (XM series) gets deployed with the 5.56 nato round and they are horrified that they may jam less but the round has basically lost its place in theater it will be forced to adapt - and rapidly.
Failure of one method simply makes room for another, more evolved one. It is the nature of all things to progress.
Meanwhile - god speed men and women of freedom. American's everywhere are scared and proud of all of you!
Posted by: PlattenFaust at November 21, 2005 11:46 AM (bJcv4)
84
It's all about economics.
And you gun nuts are just pawns.
Posted by: poobah at November 21, 2005 11:56 AM (VXrDz)
85
If anybody actually reads back to what they posted earlier, the small SMG with the 50rd 90°bullets in a clear magazine is the Fabrique Nationale P90 and it fired 5.7x28 ammo. Effective against light soft armored targets.
As far as the m16 is concerned, I know my father and his 'nam buddies hate them, because they are one of the main reasons our troops did so poorly in that theatre. They got a lot of our soldiers killed. They always have been and always will be very anal rifles. That much is undebatable.
I have a WASR-10 (semi-auto AK variant) and it works beautifully. I admit I've never really shot it more than 75 yards, but with iron sights at 75 yards standing unsupported punching out the center of my target, it shows me it's not a bad weapon to have. But it does have a kick that makes followup a bit slow. That much is also undebatable.
That being said, in an environment that is known for jamming an m16, give me an AK. In a cleaner environment, give me an m16 and I'll use it. I personally think it's a problem that our troops are trained on just 1 rifle. since some 90% of the world uses AK variants, spend a little time training on those too. Let them use battlefield pickups with confidence. They're easy, and after reading a manual, you'll know how to do strips and rebuilds. I did it. I read a pamphlet before ever touching one, and as soon as i bought mine, I tore it down and rebuilt it in under a minute. first attempt. no tools, no ammo needed to push out any pins.
Posted by: AngstNIceCream at November 21, 2005 01:05 PM (ySXvr)
86
You guys dont know what your talking about the 5.56mm round was never designed to kill in one shot unlike the AK 7.62, but was meant to simply incapacitate, which is MUCH more effective in winning a war, instead of removing 1 combatant by killing him, if you merely incapacitate him you are now forcing 2 of his buddys helping him out of the battle-field effectively removing 3 soldiers out of the battle and reducing casualties. I gues its a bit different in Iraq since the insurgents fight camikazi style, therefore bigger rounds might be called for. The M-16, dont even try to protect-it because it has caused many people their lives by constant jams and malfunctions, it is a totally worthless piece of crap and always will be but the Americans should keep it just so that it appeases their great ego while everyone else laughs and points.
Posted by: Marcos at November 21, 2005 01:36 PM (kymLG)
87
I just got back from Iraq last week, and I would like to say this:
MY. M-4. WORKED. PERFECTLY. EVERY. TIME. I. PULLED. THE. TRIGGER.
No Malfunctions, stoppages, failure to feed, extract, or anything.
I prayed to all holies for a .45, got stuck with a 9mm...thank God I didn't have to shoot anyone with that one. No confidence, whatsoever.
Posted by: Ma Deuce Gunner at November 21, 2005 01:48 PM (7kqct)
88
Engineer23-
We do have a jamming system, and they have already adapted to it.
Posted by: Ma Deuce Gunner at November 21, 2005 01:51 PM (7kqct)
89
M16 A2 rifle, 5.56 millimeter, shoulder fired, air cooled, gas operated, semi-automatic 3-round burst weapon. I think that's how it goes.
I was never in combat. I served in the Army National Guard from 97'-03' and I loved the M16! I plan on getting an AR15 real soon, I've been told by many folks it's almost the same rifle.
And also, great read. It's good to hear news from folks that are fighting this war.
Posted by: Logmaster at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (dnZrw)
90
Engineer23: A cell phone trigger works by having the individual call the bomb when the convoy nears. We employed cell phone jammers successfully for a while so they then simply reversed the trigger mechanism...meaning that instead of calling the phone, they stayed on the line with the phone and when the call was dropped (jammed by the near by convoy) the bomb exploded. Picture it as a fail-safe switch. Power on bomb explodes was turned into power off bomb explodes.
Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 04:05 PM (P+fds)
91
It is the same rifle, minus the firing control group and bolt carrier.
Posted by: Absit at November 21, 2005 04:12 PM (eUEbn)
92
Space
I would agree with the majority of your comment and add another few choice words for the author. However I doubt that this came from "a friend in the reserves" I have many outstanding Marines in my unit, percentage wise many more good ones than I did on Active Duty. Yes, I was in OIF with most of these Marines and they would all agree that past a couple of minor deficiencies that the M-16 is a decent weapon. Just because you hear bad things about the reserves does not mean that they are true. This isn't your father's reserves, they do not sit around on drill weekends drinking beer and jerking off. I know this is off topic and will get off my soap box, but having been on both sides of the coin I now see the reasons that the reserves USED to be so F*'ed up and don't want that reputation to be continued.
Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2005 04:48 PM (kiMVm)
93
Trouble with the M-16 in Nam, is that it was the A1, and the A1 version is notorious for it's cr@ptastic performance. From what I remember, the A2 version came about because of the shortcommings of the A1. The A2 features improved performance, a new handguard... (Round all the way around instead of triangular... Go figure...) The grip is pistolgrip designed for more comfortable use... Fully automatic fire is replaced with 3 round burst mode. A case deflector was added to the ejection port for those of us, (Myself included) who are left eye dominant and shoot 'wrong handed'. And I BELEIVE, but I'm not quite sure, that the jamming issues were worked on and the A2 was worked for improved relyability.
But that doesn't mean you can just go dropping the one thing that's going to keep you alive in the mud and grime and soot every chance you get.
Now, I was in basic at Ft. Benning, and I had a wonderfully irritating time in that mid summer humidity. But my Rifle NEVER screwed up when firing live rounds, even when I accidently scooped sand right into the ejection port. And my rifle had a nice wobbly upper and lower reciever... I mean that thing felt like it was barely in one piece... BUT... The only live round problem I had was when a magazine refused to feed rounds into the rifle... It was just a bad magazine. (I think I pissed off my Drill Segeant when I told him I thought it was the Magazine. And I turned out to be correct on the spot. I'm just good with mechanical things.)
No, it's the practice rounds that drove me nuts. The way the front ends are shaped like little stars, they don't feed into the chamber and get stuck on the magazine well's edge... Firing those things was an excersize in some part of SPORTS about every other shot... Shoot, Slap, Shoot, Slap, Slap... Slap extra hard, shoot. It was automatic after five minutes. If I didn't hear the bolt double click on the shot, slap the magazine to unstick that stupid little practice dummy round, and it would clank right back into place. Did I mention those rounds were NASTY? Got to put a muzzle block on the front of the rifle so there's enough gas pressure to drive the bolt back... and that's some very dirty powder gunk in those rounds.
But the A2 certainly isn't unrelyable... Not as long as you aren't abusing it by dragging it through all kinds of muck and guck, and anything else ening in 'uck'. But it can be tempermental, and knowing your weapon's little quirks helps.
Insane fun that can be sometimes... assuming nobody's trying to kill you, of course.
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 21, 2005 06:44 PM (wjPJ9)
94
I didn't see anything on the MK-19 in the above review. I was in Baghdad for a year, and to tell the truth we didn't use it all that much. I can say they performed really well at Butler Range (between Baghdad and the Iran border). Granted, that's not combat, but it is the exact same environment. I always wanted to have one in my convoy though for nothing else than it LOOKED like it would make someone have a really bad day. Everyone over there knows, if you look like you're tough, you are alot less likely to get messed with on the road.
Posted by: Dale at November 21, 2005 06:46 PM (re9pO)
95
Its funny to see so much support for the ak47.
The ak 47 can up put up large amounts of lead quickly , but it is highly un accurate, espically in auto fire. There is not a single ak47 supporter here that can match the worst solider for the us shooting 3 round bursts at 400 yards.
The ak47 is used mostly by untrained armys , it is nearly indestuctable , becuse untrained militas are not going to service a rifle properly.
IS the m-16 a perfect gun....no , is the 223 a perfect man killer...no
Does the m-16 give a fire squad much greater range and more consistant hit probability over ak-47....hell yes. You can shoot the enemy from range and they cant return fire. It is a tactical advantage.
IS the 223 much easier for the entire armed forces to shoot then the 7.62 or the 308 ....hell yes. While the 308 is a great man killing round for every 1 solider that can shoot consistantly with it , there are going to be 4 or 5 that can not . Every one in the armed forces includeing females can consistantly put lead on the target with a 223 round.
You arm chair semi auto rambos have to remember its not a SINGLE round , its Three rounds , its not 30 yards at the range it a battle feild the m-16 in 223 is leathly out out to 600 yards.
In a nut shell the 223 is a high velocity round that has remakable range , with low recoil. ITs great for close in fightign becuse of its low recoil , on par with a sub machinegun its great to range, better then most can shoot with iron sights.
Posted by: ted at November 21, 2005 07:56 PM (PPgRH)
96
I don't have the breadth of experience claimed by some here but here's my two cents.
Meh. The M4/M16 are a huge pain in the ass. Two words "star chamber", if that didn't send shivers down your spine you haven't spent enough time in the field. Do I need a .308 cartridge, probably not, but a little more stopping power than the 5.56 might make me sleep a little better. Honestly, keep the cartridge, I would just prefer a weapon that wasn't as picky and didn't take so damn long to clean. Not to say it won't kill, it will, but when there are more reliable simpler to clean options out there I would prefer them.
As for the SAW, it's a piece of crap. Ok that's too harsh, it kills so it's not complete crap, but good lord do I hate that damn weapon. Jams, links breaking when you use nutsacks, loud cumbersome plastic boxes otherwise...it's just a pain in the ass. I'm no expert but there has got to be a better option.
Posted by: Laen at November 21, 2005 07:58 PM (a919O)
97
Since no-one seems to have noted it yet, the Russians and the Chinese dropped the 7.62x39 some years ago. The Russians have used 5.45x39 since 1974. The Chinese have used 5.8x42 since the late early '90s. Both are broadly comparable to 5.56x45 NATO round.
I think it's also worth noting that the M16 and variants are used by armies and police forces around the world, something that would not happen if the weapon was the unreliable POS that some commenters claim. It is interesting to note that the British SAS and Royal Marine Commandos use the M16 instead of the standard-issue British rifle, the SA80.
Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 08:52 PM (6RyKz)
98
"It is interesting to note that the British SAS and Royal Marine Commandos use the M16 instead of the standard-issue British rifle, the SA80."
Yes, but frankly the SAS, Royal Marines and the rest of the British Army would choose almost any other rifle than their own SA80.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/28/nrifle28.xml
//yep, I'm a civilian Farker speaking out of my ass here. Only fired an AR one time, but it was sweet.
Posted by: Pog at November 21, 2005 09:36 PM (OSKhm)
99
Oh, I know that. But there's dozens of other 5.56mm rifles they could have adopted. I'm not saying that the M16 is 'the best rifle in the world' (I've never fired one, nor have I ever served in the military. And such choices are highly subjective anyway). I'm just pointing out that the M16 family is quite highly regarded internationally, contrary to what many commenters have implied.
Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 09:52 PM (6RyKz)
100
By the way, I noticed that 'AK47 best rifle ever, M16 POS' popped up in *The Zombie Survival Guide*. My first thought was "he did all his research via forums...".
Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 10:06 PM (6RyKz)
101
Sorry, this is getting messy, I could have put this all in one post. But I think it's also worth pointing out that Israel largely dropped the AK-derived (via the Finnish Valmet) Galil in favor of the M16. Admittedly, this was mainly for economic reasons, the Galil has a reputation as an excellent weapon. But still, the M16 wouldn't have lasted in the service of the notoriously uncompromising Israelis for close to 30 years if it was garbage.
Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 10:22 PM (6RyKz)
102
opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink
Posted by: d funk at November 21, 2005 11:53 PM (40jnM)
103
All of you arm-chair warriors can shut the hell up right now. The sheer ignorance you display when talking about weapons in use by the military today astounds me. First off, the M-16A2 service rifle is a thing of beauty. Firing a 5.56 mm NATO round, which welike to call a "tumbler," this thing will chew up the insides of a point target at 550m or an area target at 800m. It breaks down easy, and the jamming problems many of you talk about are tidbits you have heard third-hand from Vietnam vets back when the US was supplied with dirtier ammo that had roughly four times the carbon build-up as modern rounds. With propermaintenance an M-16A2 willwork perfectly fine in a sandstorm, providing you don't act like a dumbass and bury the thing in the sand trying to avoid enemy fire when you should be seeking cover.
Asfar as machine guns go, they all serve a purpose. while it would be nice to have a MK-19 with every fire team, it'snot practicle, but the cyclic rate of fire on a M-249 SAW more than makes up for the 5.56mm round, which as I mentioned before, is a tumbler and will ricochet around inside the body until the insides look like a parfait.
For pistols... yeah, the M-9 9mm sucks. But it has a higher magazine capacity than the .45, which is why the change was made. Pesonally,I'd prefer to see the enemy go down with one shot I had to make count rather than 4 wimpy shots, but the big green weiner has spoken, so shall it be.
The most ridiculous part of this review is the section on the "body armor" as they call it. Personally, everyone I know calls it a flak, as it isn't really that good for direct small-arms fire, mostly shrapnel. While it can stop many different types of small-arms fire at varying ranges, it weighs nowhere near the "six pounds" the review claims. Without SAPI plates in it weighs a good 15, and the plates easily double that, proving that a bunch of nerds at computers have no idea what the shit we use on the front lines is really like.
Posted by: LCpl. Botkin at November 22, 2005 01:17 AM (Ul/rQ)
104
Fucking Fark rules. These gun guys are all assholes that are too chicken to get killed for realz. I would punch every bullet in the face, and when i was done, Iraq would be a 4 year old girl with a snapped pelvis.
Eat Shit or Die Trying.
Posted by: Mexitron at November 22, 2005 02:42 AM (ybl+D)
105
I can just picture all you idiot Rambo wannabes, sitting at your computer, with a rag tied around your head, and your beer belly covering your keyboards! You all make me ill, except for Botkin and a few REAL fighting men in here... I would love to get a few of you morons into an alley and pound your faces into mush... no guns, no bragging, no lies... just hard fists into fat faces!!!! HOOOOORAH!!!!
Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:01 AM (DJetB)
106
To Brainbuster: Better be careful who you challenge in here. I am a seventh degree black belt in gong fu. I have the ability to tear out your esophagus with one move. Would you like that, you loud mouthed bean brain? You are nothing more than a screaming child, while I am a warrior who cannot be beaten. Kill yourself. Now. Do not challenge anyone in here again.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:21 AM (DJetB)
107
Hey "emptyhandkiller", or should I say "emptySKULLkiller"? You phony idiot martial arts master.... I bet you are one of those jerks who mows his lawn in his Gi, to intimidate his neighbors! I bet you are so fat, you haven't seen your tiny prick in years... you pee and it just dribbles down your fat legs! If I ever get my hands on you, I will tear off your filthy, turd stained Gi and shove it down your lying throat... I will enjoy turning your fat face into a slab of bleeding meat! Where do you live, hero? Let's meet and fight...
Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:31 AM (DJetB)
108
Brainbuster: Please do not anger me. I wouldn't want to go to prison after snapping every bone in your body and crushing each of your internal organs with my bare hands. But, perhaps it would be worth it, to see your smashed body lying in the gutter. The last thing your ruptured eyeballs ever see would be me standing over you, smiling. I would like that. Now, if you still insist on meeting for a death fight, I live in a suburb of Philadelphia. I await your reply.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:41 AM (DJetB)
109
Hold on, pal, ok? I guess you are the real deal... I never meant for this to go this far.. I don't want to die. Honest, pal, I didn't mean to insult you, ok? I think I'm a pretty tough guy, but I have a family! What would they do without me? I can't just drive to Philadelphia and get killed, I don't have life insurance... Let's just forget the whole thing, ok, pal?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:47 AM (DJetB)
110
Brainbuster: I am pleased that you have come to your senses. I knew that you were a snivelling coward from your first post. Don't worry, I won't kill you. I have decided to let you live. Go on, raise up your children, who are also destined to be cowards. But, leave the fighting to the warriors. Don't ever threaten in here again.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:54 AM (DJetB)
111
emptyhandkiller and brainbuster:
both of you are frauds that live in you're parents basements. i have tracked your ip adresses and rather then listen to you make a mockry of this beloved forum, i issue you challenges. if you can successfully touch a woman's breast within the next 2 weeks, i will not come to your basements with my commando engineered M-60 assalt weapon with a plasma grenaed luncher and blow you to hell. i bet you two will kiss and hug before i kill you to death.
Posted by: HOORAHKILLA97 at November 22, 2005 09:06 AM (fg/Yy)
112
Wow - this got stupid quick.
Posted by: PlattenFaust at November 22, 2005 10:39 AM (bJcv4)
113
to emptyhandkiller you are a fucking idiot, oh yeah Im a seventh degree black belt in gong fu, go fuck yourself you piece of shit show-off. Whenever I hear motherfucker like you in real life talking about how bad-ass they are a quick jab to the face makes em shut the fuck up quick. Oh yeah and internet chalenges are the lamest shit ever.
Posted by: Marcos at November 22, 2005 10:54 AM (kymLG)
114
Good LORD, the IQ factor in the last five posts went into the single digits.
Sheesh.
You're acting like a bunch of forteen year old middle school boys trying out for the football team to impress the cheerleaders.
First off, a martial artist is better dissaplined than that, and don't go throwing 'quick jabs' or fighting threats around because of what people say. You shame yourself and your fighting style with that kind of childish banter if you are actually taking a course.
Second, this is not a place for fighting... I'm sure the webmasters of this site would appreciate it if you didn't waste their bandwidth with death-threats and foul language warfare. That's what Battlefield 2, Soldat, and other online games are for. ^_^V
Third, you're not making yourselves look good at all by talking trash like that. You just show everone else reading how much of an ass you can be... which tends to be detrimental to your reputations and makes people tend not to believe any oppion or information you may post.
Fourth: IP's cannot reveal a location by themselves. You can track down the ISP, but that's about as far as you'll get before you hit a wall. ISPs have it in their Privacy Policy not to reveal personal information. And even if you got the info, you wouldn't be able to reliably track the IP if it switches constantly... And even on top of that, that does not determine the location of the computer at the address you might have gotten from the ISP. IP address isn't a GPS assignment.
The long and short of it is, BEHAVE, you're acting worse than children.
And if you don't behave...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/admiraltigerclaw/bb61fa.jpg
I might have to get nasty. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I now leave you with a quote.
"Knowledge is power, and I LIKE power."
- Cobra Bubbles, Lilo & Stitch movie
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (aXrGS)
115
Back to the original subject, everyone has made great points about what we are currently and should be using. Remember a few things though, if you are clearing a room, encounter a insurgent, squeeze a few rounds, one hits but the other 2 miss. Would you want those other 2 rounds to be powerful enough go through the wall and into another clearing team? Also, because we are the Greatest Nation on Earth, we are also plagued with keeping the liberals at bay and the everyday soldier must use ammo that is not a leathal as the 7.62. Finally, to piggie back on a few other people, dry lube works much better then CLP in the sand box. The carbon is less likely to stick as much and is easier to clean when you get the chance. The M-16A2 is a tighter fit then the AK, but that means better accurancy ..... one shot, one kill.
Essayons
Posted by: cc at November 22, 2005 01:51 PM (Tetf4)
116
Just remember not to field strip the bolt all the way down out there in the sand box...
}
That tiny little metal holding pin can be a nightmare to find if you drop it.
Anyway, you can easily tell who has had actual military training around here. The whole 'take care of your equipment' mindset is easily recognized, because it's hammered into you in basic. "Your weapon is your girlfriend, your wife! Take care of her and she'll be good to you. Treat her like shit and she'll screw you over big time!"
Heh... Rifles are kind of like someone's wife... You take loving care of her to a point some would even call high maintinence, and she'll spout death to anyone who dares piss her off.
Did I mention the last four digits on my rifle's serial number in basic was 1942?
That tiny little metal holding pin can be a nightmare to find if you drop it.
Anyway, you can easily tell who has had actual military training around here. The whole 'take care of your equipment' mindset is easily recognized, because it's hammered into you in basic. "Your weapon is your girlfriend, your wife! Take care of her and she'll be good to you. Treat her like shit and she'll screw you over big time!"
Heh... Rifles are kind of like someone's wife... You take loving care of her to a point some would even call high maintinence, and she'll spout death to anyone who dares piss her off.
Did I mention the last four digits on my rifle's serial number in basic was 1942?Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 22, 2005 02:15 PM (aXrGS)
117
This is ALL MADE UP BS!
Posted by: paul b at November 22, 2005 02:48 PM (rE3Xp)
118
Great read, and to the complaints on the M-16 being underpowered... Did anyone read the fine print? The M-16 is a "casualty producing weapon"
Not that I had to memorize a complete line of info on it for Army Boards or anything. Jams, etc yep. Just saying it *IS* designed to produce casualties, not kill outrght. Philosophy is, that *WE* Americans try to retrieve the wounded. 2-4 persons per casualty, one dog tag per dead. Do the math. Unfortunately, the enemy is already dead, and just doesn't realize it yet.
Posted by: SabreWulf at November 22, 2005 10:24 PM (Mgg99)
119
To Marcos: Listen turdface, you better stop mouthing off to emptyhandkiller! He will tear you into tiny shreds of meat and feed them to his pet alligator.... He is the toughest fighter in here, and he will squash any of you like tiny bugs... I nearly fought him, but God was looking out for me that day and brought me to my senses!
Posted by: brainbuster at November 23, 2005 06:55 AM (y7ATV)
120
ADMIRAL TIGERCLAW: Be very careful who you threaten in here. I hope you are aware of my fighting abilities. I have ways of finding you. How would you like to be walking along the street, and have me spring out of the bushes and apply the Mongolian face clutch on you? This hold paralyzes the phrenic nerve, rendering you completely helpless. I have fought and defeated many, many opponents. I suggest you creep away and never post in here again.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 23, 2005 09:02 AM (y7ATV)
121
Ny feedback on how the british sa-802 is doing over there since H&K modified it?
Posted by: Royal Anglian at November 23, 2005 12:54 PM (1SfXq)
122
Marcos, emptyhandkiller, admiral tigerclaw, and you other hate mongers, what is the matter with you? Why must violence always be the answer? Didn't you learn anything from brainbusters example? His good sense averted what might have become a meaningless waste of human life. He saw that it was best not to fight, but to give peace a chance.
Our defense policy should follow his example! You all saw how quickly emptyhandkiller changed his focus from violence and vengance to one of mercy. When he saw that brainbuster was no longer a threat, he immediatly backed away from violence and embraced clemency and brotherhood. See, deep down, emptyhandkiller is not a psychopathic killer, but a loving human being. If we could all follow his example, there would be no need for war and violence and the mongolian face clutch. There would be more money for social justice and understanding. Our adversaries would follow our example.
Less guns more love.
Posted by: trypeace at November 23, 2005 08:24 PM (gTeyO)
123
TRYPEACE; You are right. I, as a warrior, do not hate. I love. Yes, I LOVE fighting. I would have met and destroyed brainbuster had he not turned coward. Just as I now would love to meet and destroy YOU. While you are so busy loving everyone and blowing kisses to the terrorists, I would simply walk up behind you and apply the Hindu Neck Lock. This hold is unbreakable, and you would be completely at my mercy. I would give you the customary five seconds to say, "Bye mommy!" or some other nonsense before I eliminate you.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 24, 2005 08:25 AM (aVXS6)
124
Admiral Tigerclaw, NOW you have done it. With all your name calling, you have invited the rage of emptyhandkiller! I sure am glad I ain't YOU! I just wish that I could see you two fight, so I could watch your blood run down main street and into a storm drain.... Then, to help out my friend, emptyhandkiller, I would get a snow shovel and scrape away your carcass... You better move far away and change your name...
Posted by: brainbuster at November 24, 2005 08:35 AM (aVXS6)
125
I don't know about the mongolian face clutch or the hundu neck lock, but I am interested in shooting. I am 14, and I have a BB gun that I shoot baloons with. I am getting pretty good, to where I can usually pop 8 out of 10 baloons from about 25 steps away. Is that good? I do think I want to be a Marine as soon as I am old enough. I am living with my aunt in the UK.
Posted by: wisepunk at November 24, 2005 08:40 AM (aVXS6)
126
MARCOS: Who is the loud mouth? You will not be jabbing anyone in the face. I would probably laugh at your childish fighting technique. Only for a few seconds, though. Then I would finish you off for the good of society. If ignorance is bliss, then you must be the happiest person on the planet. You would assume your fighting stance, and then I would quickly and easily take you down and apply the Hawaiian Knee Dislocator. As you hobble for the rest of your life, with a crippled leg, perhaps you will have learned something from our encounter.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 26, 2005 04:29 AM (0U4Uv)
127
I am a G3 fan do you think a G3 would do great if issued in Iraq... It being a 7.62mm rifle, lousy thing thou is a 20 round magazine...
Posted by: skullangel at November 28, 2005 01:40 AM (M/9Bc)
128
I guess all the professionals have read the comments above, shaken their heads, and moved on. In an attempt to restore some symbolence of respectability to this blog, please allow me to post a few comments-
When Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 (not M-16, and in inventory still as the GAU-something- I forget)for the USAF,(and based on his AR-10 design which was in 7.62x51 BTW) it had a 1-14 barrel twist and the .223 round it fired (not 5.56, that came later on a NATO standardization-different specs-trust me) was 52 grain. What does this mean? If you know anything about ballistics, grab a chart and ck the stability- the round was essentually ballistically unstable. This meant when it hit a soft target, it went nuts, with a very unpredictable wound channel. It used commercial powder and burned clean.
Then the Army adopted it (as the M-16) and wanted a weapon that a) wounded its enemy (which causes a logistical and morale problem) b) was not as easily deflected by brush and wind (that didn't work out) and c) was cheaper to produce the ammo for. This meant a change in the barrel twist to 1-12, a 55 gr bullet, and a drawn powder that was much cheaper. Result- since a misconception was the M-16 was a self cleaning weapon (it wasn't-Armalite suggested to direct gas impengement system cleaned the gas tube out-it actually produced carbon into the bolt/reciever group)the new powder produced a higher volume of carbon into the reciever, the new weapon was not 1st shot lethal unless there was a CNS shot, and alot of untrained troops died with a jammed M-16 in their hands around '66 and '67. This lead to the M-16A1 with its forward assist to shove the (by now) 5.56 cart into the fouled chamber.
Fast forward to the contemporary- the M-16A2 (and M-4) are product improved M-16. They are well made, but they now have 1-7 twist barrels shooting a 62 gr bullet. Ballistically stable, more accurate, and most importantly not as easily deflected by wind, and able to better penetrate threat body armor (the Warsaw Pact). The new, heavier round (73 gr) will add to the penetration and long range ballistic performance.
The M-16 series is a fine system, provided the operator maintains his weapon and goes for multiple hits on the target. The future lies in a mid-caliber replacement, as in the 6.8 or the like, which has greater terminal ballstic performance (ie perm wound channel)against our new foes. I could go on, but what would be the point? The 7.62 is a great combat round for those that can handle it (multi-shot engagement is much more difficult) but the way we use ammo in combat now, carrying the same amount of combat load would just weigh too much, even with the short mission profiles.
Just in case you are wondering, yeah, I'm the real deal, former "alotofthings" and now am resigned to train those who go in harms way. Ya got any questions, email me. Otherwise inform yourself before expressing your opinions.
Posted by: Ferg at November 28, 2005 08:13 PM (9ZCOj)
129
My two cents:
no matter what, a .223 round, in my mind, will always be for prairie dogs and coyotes. Not to stop humans. Hell, I'd rather have a .22-250.
No matter how you look at it, the m-16/ar-15 platform was originally a target rifle for the friggin' air force...
The m-16/ar-15 craps where it eats (referring to the direct gas impingement system). It was, is and always will be a fundamentally flawed system.
Give me a VEPR(can be had in 7.62x39 OR .30
or an excellent Bulgarian AK47 ANY day over anything chambered in a friggin' varmint round. AK/RPK actions stand up in conditions where the 16s/15s/4s lay down and crap out. In my state, a person can hunt deer with 7.62x39mm; not with a .223, though. Sand, dirt, mud, salt snow...whatever...an AK doesn't care.
It just cracks me up when people take sides and agree with the politicians and military high-ups, and they even go out and buy the crappy weapons that all the infantry are trying to get rid of. Hell, Spec-Ops are using some weapons chambered in WWII and Korea-era cartridges.
It's all to save money.
or an excellent Bulgarian AK47 ANY day over anything chambered in a friggin' varmint round. AK/RPK actions stand up in conditions where the 16s/15s/4s lay down and crap out. In my state, a person can hunt deer with 7.62x39mm; not with a .223, though. Sand, dirt, mud, salt snow...whatever...an AK doesn't care.
It just cracks me up when people take sides and agree with the politicians and military high-ups, and they even go out and buy the crappy weapons that all the infantry are trying to get rid of. Hell, Spec-Ops are using some weapons chambered in WWII and Korea-era cartridges.
It's all to save money. Posted by: chachi at November 28, 2005 08:15 PM (gdDWx)
130
emptyhandkiller...
Take empty-handed-threats to people who care about threats coming from you. I care ZERO. I just want the conversation back in the civil area without the flinging of poo. Besides, not only is it rediculous to threaten people online, it's strategicly and tactically unsound to describe to me exactly what you would plan to do. Not only do I know to avoid dark alleys from which you can jump out, I also know that my first reaction should be to duck and avoid the hand should you manage to engage me that close.
Now, not only have you lost the surprise advantage because I could now be expecting you, you also lose the stretegic advantage of the terrain seeing as you have to come to me and engage me on my turf and terms. Not only must you find me, but you must track me down and engage me when I'm alone, or risk failure before you even get started. This takes TIME, and can result in fatige and delay of your otherwise 'excelent' (I use the term skepticly.) reflexes. It is both a strategic and a tactical blunder on your part.
Now, assuming you bypass this extensive line of problems with minimal problems, you must still ambush me rapidly enough to actually engage me with the so called 'Mongolian Face Clutch'. If I even have a split second warning of your assault, I can easily avoid the 'Clutch' and am then allowed the more conventional method of the Pacifist Crush. A very simple method where I simply lance out blindly for your neck at full force without so much as thinking, with the pre-programmed intent in my reflexes to smash your windpipe on the spot, rendering you a choking esphixiated mugger on the ground that, without immediate assistance to clear your wind pipe, will suffocate. A crude strike to a soft target... but effective and critical none the less. However I would NEVER use it unless it was in self defense. (Nobody really seems to realize just how critial the throat area is... It's always face strikes or gut punches, or kidney jabs. Never a well placed single strike to cripple the opponent as fast as possible.)
Now, open ground assault asside, how about attacking me in my own home. Well, that's also a mistake. I have a pitbull... friendly as all hades... but the dog knows exactly when someone is in the vicinity and lets everyone know. So a hand combat ambush would be impossible. (Plus it would be better to bet that a pitbull, even as friendly as mine, might come unglued if his 'buddy' was attacked.) So that attack method would be blunderous beyond blunderous... especially with the range of Melee weapons I have in my room. (Some katanas, a pair of daitos...) Of which I have actively moved through the house doing a burgler check with before when I thought something wasn't right.
Attacking me at work would just be plain stupid... We have people, cameras, and law enforcement to back us up. Whoever might win a fight there, you lose. I'll wish you off to whichever federal prison you end up going to if you want.
Now go beat up on the wall or something... It'll take more than your fists and boasts to intimidate me, so don't bother trying.
Back to the topic at hand...
M-16A2 or some other weapon, if you're trained to use it better than the other guy, you'll win. All you have to do is be hit, reguardless of round size. It will hurt... and that will throw off your aim unless you are just IMMUNE to pain. And by the time you manage to shrug off the supposed non-critical hit from the 5.56 mm round... the second has already found its mark in your skull. Bullet size doesn't really matter. Once your rhythm is off, and they've still got you sighted... you're a dead man. Varmint corpse, or human corpse... you're still a corpse, and a bullet will kill everyone just the same dead as the rest. High power rounds are more important when you're in a situation where they must be dead by the time you hear your weapon fire. In this case, at close range, the velocity of the round is going allow it to kill the target if it hits any critical area... reguardless of stopping power between round sizes. In this case, it's just a matter of who takes the first shot and scores a hit. Bullet size doesn't mean anything unless it's a shotgun blast.
At long range, bullet size can help determine the characteristics of the impact... but I would prefer a weapon which I can use with accuracy, instead of spraying hundreds of heavy slugs everywhere in the 'spray and pray' method. If I can get a scope on an M4, and put a small little bullet through my enemy's head before he can spray me with his big bullets... he's dead.
If I want true power... I skip out the use of an automatic or burst fire rifle and just use the big stuff... like the Barret.
Of course, weapon choice can vary greatly depending strictly on the situation. The M-16 and M-4 have a pretty good all-round performance. Accurate at range, and can still work close in. (Although at the closer ranges, I'd start leaning towards a shotgun and some heavy machinegun coverfire. But for ranged, LONG ranged, and ULTRA long ranged... Barret's my weapon of choice, strictly because it out-ranges just about anything a typical troop would have, and can punch a hole through concrete at such ranges. Suddenly the enemy can't attack, and they can't take cover easily. They can only bull rush, artillery me, or some other indirect method of attack. Unless they had brute numbers advantage. Barret's have a ten round cartraige... With shots that can penetrate several soft targets should they line up. So to take me down would require a serious assault.)
It mostly comes down to personal prefference in the end. How do you want to fight?
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 01:36 AM (aXrGS)
131
I know, I know... some people say "a bullet is a bullet...period." Well, myself and a bunch of other guys out there who have seen--IN PERSON-- the gross lack of stopping power that is inherent in the 5.56mm round know that not all bullets/cartridges are created equally.
Some like to talk about the "power" from the ARÂ’s high velocity. Then how come police tactical units are using 5.56MM weapons because of the reduced risk of over penetration? Police MUST make CNS shots with serious, bench-rest bolt actions, most often at distances of less than 100 meters. High velocity hits + small caliber bullet= frangible rounds. Trust me, the debate is still out on that one, folks.
Just about any .308 load will blow a big enough hole through a person to toss a cat through, so donÂ’t even go there about 5.56MM ballistics. Especially when you're talking about the shorter 16 inch barreled versions of the AR(ie M4). When you shorten the barrel of a rifle, your reducing itÂ’s velocity and the only thing the M-16 has going for it: it's velocity. After chopping it down, your velocity is now just average. LetÂ’s be quite frankÂ… there are some .22LR loads that can almost catch up to it. Hell, .22-250 and .220 Swift outperform it in velocity. So an M4 becomes about as accurate as an average AK at medium ranges. It doesn't bother me if you don't trust me because I say "I know." Trust me, there was a time when I hated ANY foreign firearm: AKs, Draganovs or anything chambered in 9mm. After using them in the field I have come to respect them. Early on during my 12 years in the SOF business I guess I found out what works for my life and the lives I protect.
Oh yeah, and velocity alone will not instantly kill. Maybe at a certain point, but that is beyond the scope(hehe
of this discussion.
here are the arguments:
1) The M16 is so accurate!
Answer: Accuracy isn't the number one requirement of an assault rifle and does you little good if the gun doesnÂ’t fire when the trigger is pulled.
2) It works fine if you clean it!
Answer: A service rifle should still work fine even when you don't have the time to clean it. Such as when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss into it to rinse the mud chunks out of it, and be back in the fight.
3) It's very light!
Answer: And it breaks! However this very light AR-15 is no longer light when you add in all the extras that are the style these daysÂ… two white lights, vertical fore grip, full length rail for your short compact optical sightsÂ… lasersÂ… AM/FM tape deckÂ… There is a whole gun industry/sub-industry surrounding the AR-15 platform. There are so many accessories the AR is nothing more than a Black Barbie Doll for Boys. You can dress it up for a night on the town or a day at the beach in your little pink convertibleÂ… itÂ’s fabulous! By the time your rifle is dressed out like one of the guys from the Blackhawk Industries adsÂ… itÂ’s no longer very light. It now weighs as much as an M-249 SAW.
4) I've fired blah, blah number of rounds through MY AR, and it works fine.
Answer: probably not while on your belly in the dirt crawling through God knows what. Punching holes through paper targets at the range is fineÂ… the AR-15 is a great little .223 target rifle. But a fighting rifle it is not. "As long as you do your part..."
This is a WEAPON... Not a Bench Rest comp-rifle. A weapon gets used and abused... not treated like a Faberge Egg. "Doing your part" should include pissing into the action to rinse the mud out of it - and not much more.
Some like the AR. Fine. Enlist and try it out where it is supposed to be used. One thing to think about... The AR was designed back in the 1960s, when people smoked a lot of pot... Not saying that Stoner smoked dope, but it would explain a few things. Since that time there have been dozens of different military guns designed all over the world. The designers of these weapons had the advantage of being able to look at what else was out there and pick what they liked the best. So my question is, over the last forty some odd years, how many new military rifles have come out using the AR gas system? (The .308 version of the AR-15 called the SR-25 or AR-10 doesn't count) How many have come out using a piston? How many have a spring loaded ejector vs. a fixed ejector? With some form of gas piston or op rod since the AR: K2, G36, SAR, Valmet, Sako M90, Sig 550, FNC, Galil, Tavor, AN 94, FARA 98, Aug, INSAS, AR 70/90, AR 18, Stoner 63. I'm not sure if it is Singapore or Taiwan who has built a copy of the M16, but it even has a gas piston! I've probably forgotten a few as well. Who else has used direct gas impingement in their designs? I can't think of any at the moment.
of this discussion.
here are the arguments:
1) The M16 is so accurate!
Answer: Accuracy isn't the number one requirement of an assault rifle and does you little good if the gun doesnÂ’t fire when the trigger is pulled.
2) It works fine if you clean it!
Answer: A service rifle should still work fine even when you don't have the time to clean it. Such as when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss into it to rinse the mud chunks out of it, and be back in the fight.
3) It's very light!
Answer: And it breaks! However this very light AR-15 is no longer light when you add in all the extras that are the style these daysÂ… two white lights, vertical fore grip, full length rail for your short compact optical sightsÂ… lasersÂ… AM/FM tape deckÂ… There is a whole gun industry/sub-industry surrounding the AR-15 platform. There are so many accessories the AR is nothing more than a Black Barbie Doll for Boys. You can dress it up for a night on the town or a day at the beach in your little pink convertibleÂ… itÂ’s fabulous! By the time your rifle is dressed out like one of the guys from the Blackhawk Industries adsÂ… itÂ’s no longer very light. It now weighs as much as an M-249 SAW.
4) I've fired blah, blah number of rounds through MY AR, and it works fine.
Answer: probably not while on your belly in the dirt crawling through God knows what. Punching holes through paper targets at the range is fineÂ… the AR-15 is a great little .223 target rifle. But a fighting rifle it is not. "As long as you do your part..."
This is a WEAPON... Not a Bench Rest comp-rifle. A weapon gets used and abused... not treated like a Faberge Egg. "Doing your part" should include pissing into the action to rinse the mud out of it - and not much more.
Some like the AR. Fine. Enlist and try it out where it is supposed to be used. One thing to think about... The AR was designed back in the 1960s, when people smoked a lot of pot... Not saying that Stoner smoked dope, but it would explain a few things. Since that time there have been dozens of different military guns designed all over the world. The designers of these weapons had the advantage of being able to look at what else was out there and pick what they liked the best. So my question is, over the last forty some odd years, how many new military rifles have come out using the AR gas system? (The .308 version of the AR-15 called the SR-25 or AR-10 doesn't count) How many have come out using a piston? How many have a spring loaded ejector vs. a fixed ejector? With some form of gas piston or op rod since the AR: K2, G36, SAR, Valmet, Sako M90, Sig 550, FNC, Galil, Tavor, AN 94, FARA 98, Aug, INSAS, AR 70/90, AR 18, Stoner 63. I'm not sure if it is Singapore or Taiwan who has built a copy of the M16, but it even has a gas piston! I've probably forgotten a few as well. Who else has used direct gas impingement in their designs? I can't think of any at the moment.Posted by: chachi at November 29, 2005 02:47 AM (gdDWx)
132
ADMIRAL TIGERCLAW: I know now that you are a well camouflaged coward. You post your boastings in here, trying to impress the real warriors in here. I have seen your exact paragraphs in various weapons magazines. You have a pitbull, and an assortment of weapons. You must look ridiculous, creeping through your home, scared out of your wits looking for that non existant burglar. So, you hide behind a dog, behind a pile of weapons, you even hide at work behind cameras and witnesses. I rest my case, coward. I doubt you have ever fought anything, save your own fears of the world.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 07:53 AM (okGVz)
133
Emptyhandkiller... WOW!!! Now I KNOW you can take admiraltigerclaw! But, like he says, what if he senses you near and DUCKS when you go for the Face Clutch? What would you do?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:00 AM (okGVz)
134
Have no fear, brainbuster. Remember, for every move, there is a counter move. Fighting is like a well choreographed dance. As admiraltigerclaw ducks, I simply ram a knee upward, shattering his jawbone and smashing his teeth. Then, as he crawls on all fours spewing blood from his face, I will finish him off with a simple head kick, which, if it doesn't eliminate him, will render him a babbling brain damaged halfwit in an asylum.
As for his incredible throat thrust, another simple counter move. Because he is thrusting blindly, and putting all his power in this one move, I simply sweep with my arm and re-direct his force. Once his force is aimed elsewhere, I have several choices. I could gouge out his eyes, smash his nose into splinters, or a blow to his soft organs or even his throat. There is no technique or style that he could use that I haven't already mastered.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 08:12 AM (okGVz)
135
emptyhandkiller: Your attempts to argue with me are laughable. Not only do you continue to pick a fight when I show it is clear there is none, but you continue to chuck insults about people you know nothing about and boast about how 'GREAT' you are when in reality... NOBODY CARES. Isn't it amazing? Especially when you talk about how you can dissable a person with one grip of your hand? Come off it now. If you are as good as you are boasting, I'm going nowhere, come and get me. You have the knowledge you need. I have given you strategic insight into my only defenses. If you are so determined to prove your manhood to this dark corner of cyberspace, you'd best get up off your ass and do something about it. HURRY! The zombies look doubtful of your greatness!
Otherwise you're not an emptyhandkiller as you would wish... but just empty-handed.
"Now...what's wrong? Only two of your legs are ripped off...Summon your beasts! Transform your body! Regenerate your legs and get the hell up! Pick up that gun and fight back! Come on, the night has just begun. The fun has yet to begin. Hurry! Hurry! Hurry, hurry hurry HURRY HURRY!!!
-Alucard
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 08:15 AM (aXrGS)
136
MY LORD!!! Emptyhandkiller, I am in awe of your fighting abilities! I bet that even if admiraltigerclaw were to ever meet you, as soon as he saw you warming up, he would run off and hide in a dumpster!! But, he wouldn't meet you alone.... I think he is afraid, too... he would bring a bunch of his friends, and his dog, and have the police there... that no good crud! Hey, emptyhandkiller, do you think I could take him?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:30 AM (okGVz)
137
Brainbuster, I must admit that you fighting admiraltigerclaw would be a very humorous event. It is always entertaining when two confirmed cowards square off in a fight. But, actually, it might be a close contest, with two scrawny weaklings battling it out. As the two of you mindlessly swing away at each other, perhaps you will land a lucky blow on admiraltigerclaw. Or he will land one on you. I would enjoy watching either outcome.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 08:39 AM (okGVz)
138
Thanks, emptyhandkiller! Thanks for the encouragement.... I really believe that I can take that no good idiot, admiraltigerclaw! I bet I could land something on him, and maybe even knock him out!! If you saw him lying belly up, and me standing over him... I would be so happy and proud!
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:54 AM (okGVz)
139
I see plenty of talk and no action. You haven't tracked me down and ambushed me yet? I'm here, whenever you decide to back your words up with actual force. You'll be happy to know that even in the face of reducing me to the pulp you seem so satisfied to think I would become, that I am not afraid. Anywho, I'm off to a game of SOLDAT... Been running a server all night... Lethal Weapons.
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 12:21 PM (aXrGS)
140
OK you guys, can you just go fight somewhere, and get it over with? I am still waiting for an answer about my shooting. Like I said, I can usually hit 8 out of 10 balloons with my BB gun. I am 14 years old, and I think I can shoot pretty good. My daddy, who lives in Montana, said I can have a real gun when I turn 17. I can't wait!
Posted by: wisepunk at November 29, 2005 05:16 PM (okGVz)
141
Hey, Emptyhandkiller.... Are you on? If you are, let's talk about Admiral Tigerclaw, and what a bigmouth coward he is, ok?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:19 PM (okGVz)
142
Yes, brainbuster, I am here. What would you like to say about the coward, Admiraltigerclaw? I see he has run off to play his little games. I presume he is a pimple face pre-teen playing war games over the computer. I even doubt if he has hair on his crotch.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:23 PM (okGVz)
143
ROLF!!! Boy, you sure got HIM pegged, emptyhand!! Let's talk about beating him up. Say you two were gonna fight, and he tried to kick you in your balls! What would you do against THAT?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:27 PM (okGVz)
144
That is an easy scenario, brainbuster. There are two ways to defeat that attack. One, I would bring up one of my legs and deflect his kick. As soon as his kick was off target, I would instantly switch legs and snap kick HIS testicles, crushing them. Two, I would deflect his leg with my arm. Then, with the other arm, I would punch down at an angle, also crushing his testicles. Either method will crush his testicles. Next scenario, please.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:32 PM (okGVz)
145
WOW, Emptyhand!!!! That is INCREDIBLE!! It all sounds so easy, but then again you have trained all your life. Ok.... how about this one.... Admiral Tigerclaw just plain charges at you, screaming, with his arms raised up... he just goes nuts on you.... now what?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:35 PM (okGVz)
146
This is actually fun, brainbuster. Knowing you have no knowledge of technical style, I enjoy hearing your primitive fighting scenarios. As you said, Admiral Tigerclaw is chargin like a maniac, intent on tearing me apart. Of course, he is so wide open for almost any technique, but here is my favorite. Just as he reaches me, I extend the middle and forefinger knuckles of my fist. I step slightly to the side and rifle a punch directly into Admiral Tigerclaws' armpit. There is a large bundle of nerves there, along with the lymph nodes. The pain would be incredible, the fight would be over, and if I hit it exactly right, his arm should then be paralyzed for life. Within a few weeks, the arm should atrophy, and soon hang limp looking like a dolls' arm.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:44 PM (okGVz)
147
OH MY GOD!!!!! I would LOVE to see Admiral Tigerclaw get hit with THAT!!!! I can't think of anything that you can't defeat, so I will go and practice the moves you just described, OK? Thanks, Emptyhand, and I hope I see you tomorrow!!! WOW!!!!!
Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:49 PM (okGVz)
148
Well my 2 cents as I have owned almost all of the rifles mentioned here.
Please realize this is in my opinion!!!
HK G3= ok accuracy, reliable, dirty can you say "fluted chamber" kicks very hard for a 308 auto making for difficult follow up shots.
FAL= Better accuracy, reliable, good recoil for a 308 but still to much for quick follow ups, probably one of the all time best MBR's out there.
M14= Great accuracy, reliable, awsome triger, good recoil but still to much for quick follow ups, wonky scope placement because of dated design, really not best to run completly dry so it's a bit of a sand grabber.
m16=great accuracy!! good trigger, great recoil, fun on follow ups and steel popers at 200 yards! But It's way to tight fitting inside even with dry lube on the rails for a military rifle.
AK-"built anywhere" The energized bunny of killing it keeps going and going and going. Fair to poor accuracy, horrid trigger and way to much recoil for auto-burst use. A very good rifle for the everyman. Part of the problem lies with the AK's very short sight radius.
Note=True russian built AK's have 1/3rd the group sizes of the knock offs but still have the recoil problems unless your talking the newer .223 based ones. But still the problem with the sights.
Best military rifle I've ever owned and feel is just about perfect! HK G36 it's a near perfect mix of the AK and M16. What sucks is it should be in the field right now instead of the delayed xm-8 project!
Why is it great you may ask? go ahead ask!
Low recoil because of being based on the .223/5.56 round
G36 bolt runs on rails simular to the ak47 not the horrid "imo" system of sliding a bolt down a round tube on 4 axis and praying nothing gets in there.
Large internal voids that do nothing except make room for sand and junk to fall into. THIS KEEPS IT AWAY from all the important things like the trigger and bolt group.
One of the best Gas systems out there. It uses a short stroke piston tied to an op-rod so absolutly no gas get's back into the action.
Uses a rail system so optics are easy to mount.
One thing I didn't like was the use of a plastic trigger group with steel inserts as it made the trigger feel flimsy.
The second thing I didn't like was after about 4k rounds "on mine at least" the stock started to behave like a loose AR upper/lower.
Anyone who has shot an ar/m-16..etc with this problem know what I'm talking about! it feels like your trying to shoot a rifle with a hinge in the middle. I feel this is a design flaw of the rifle as the attachment points of the stock were plastic and had opened up a little over time.
PS. I've never served in the military and have no emotional ties to any of these rifles. I spent lots of money to accuire them and this is what "I" found out by shooting the heck out of them.
Posted by: Marty at November 29, 2005 09:54 PM (I4KJw)
149
Ignoring the empty-handed man and the brainbusted person because they do nothing despite all their talk...
Marty, you say the AK has nasty recoil problems?
How about a weapon for a shorter stature person like myself? The one thing I always had trouble with in Basic was the fact that I had to grip the barrel almost by the magazine well. Unless I kept my trigger hand (left hand) tight and the buttstock pulled into my shoulder, I would quickly fatigue my support arm and have the barrel wobble everywhere. Thus all the targets would take longer to get sighted in because I had to circle the barrel in to line it up and smooth out the shake. The irritating part is that I didn't realize I hadn't been keeping my trigger hand tight and pulling the weapon in until the end of qualification day. I was shooting like total craptasticness, and suddenly it clicked why my hand and arm were shaking so badly, and the very next time I started shooting, I was putting targets down easily.
AS for that upper/lower reciever hinge problem... my M-16 was like that. It wobbled.. but I had no problems actually firing, since the forces of the shots were at ninty degree angles to the way the recievers wobbled. It did however, make you look at it and go 'Huh? WHAT THE?!' Which later turned to... 'Weird...' when you realized that it didn't effect actuall shooting. I don't think it's a design flaw as much as it's just extensive use and breakdown of the parts over time.
The thing that irritated me was how the magazine for the M-16 feeds rounds into the bolt... The bolt just catches the round, pushes it forward, and it slides itself up into the chamber. A little grit and it could get caught on the lip of the well and requires that little extra thump to the magazine to pop it in... Irritating really, especially with those star tipped dummy rounds. Those get caught so easily as I explained somewhere way up the page.
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 30, 2005 01:25 AM (aXrGS)
150
The best example of a 7.62x39 AK47 steering the operator instead of the other way around was caught on video during a jail riot early in the iraq war.
The operator was behind one of those walls you see on a castle with the gaps at the top of every other block.
He went to fire into the jail below "full auto" and was turned so quickly and with so much force that he shot the block to his right maybe a foot away at most.
Needless to say once he realized he was shooting at a solid object about 6 inches from his body he stoped firing.
The ak47 in 7.62x39 shooting a cartridge very simular to the 30.30 winchester and running at 600 rounds per minute is a hell of a bullet hose to manage.
No mater what you end up thinking of the .223/5.56 round in curent use it has a lot going for it in the launch department.
Plus you can't discount suppressing fire as it's a huge fixture in urban warefare durring flanking moves. It's just simple math a soldier can carry twice as many .223 rounds versus .308 for the same weight.
PS. as a side note the .223 makes a lousy belt fed round and sucks as such "Very Little Case Wall Taper" Who ever was saying that .223 mini is great must have gotten the best one off the line.
I've simply heard from too many military friends who had to shoot the .223 belt for me to discount their bad feelings towards it.
-------------
I'd say for a smaller person looking just for a cheap effective, light rifle that can be had for $300-400 bucks I'd go with an ak either in .223 or in the russian "can't member name" round which is a .223 derivative.
It wouldn't be great for target shooting but you would be able to punch a paper plate at 100 yards most of the time.
The main reason for my choice with a smaller shooter is that the AK is built small i.e. shorter stock and dist to trigger than most of the main battle rifles.
You might want to stay away from the milled reciever versions as they are noticably heavier than the stamped and not all that much better.
----------------------------------------------
Oh, on that complaint about the star locking lugs on the AR. The G36 still uses them but they are shaped with a much smoother angle into the chamber so it should feed blanks better... but that's just a guess on my part as I never shot blanks in mine.
I do feel though that the locking lug design on the AR is a work of genius as they provide very uniform lock up each and every time and are basicly self cleaning.
As I said before the AR has many good points and I've owned 2 in the past and enjoyed them a lot but there are glaring points to the design that needed fixed.
Luckly there are many new rifles that fix the problems and keep the good points.
HK's G36
ROBINSON ARMAMENT CO XCR (untested by me)
FN's F2000 (untested by me)
Heck the m16 and AK's date from the same era as cars with lap belts only and solid steel dashes.
Yes you will encounter people who have serious emotional ties to AR, AK, or Springfield. But when you get down to it the designs are dated and there are better designs out there.
The perfect rifle hasn't been made yet but I'm still looking for it.
Posted by: marty at November 30, 2005 03:29 AM (I4KJw)
151
I have to agree with Marty on the HK G36. Those Germans really, REALLY know what they are doing. Now that is a fine piece of kit. It's the Mercedes-Benz of assault rifles. It also has the price tag of a Mercedes. More like a used big-body Mercedes. Or a new baby-Benz.
Anyhow, I'll stick with 7.62mm myself. The AKs and their variants(with a GOOD muzzle brake fitted) that I have used haven't suffered from horrible accuracy or recoil that people speak of. I just think it's a case of people used to the accuracy of the AR-15 compared to medium to low quality AK knock-offs. I would never compare the two because they are in their own catagories. One is a bench-rest target rifle with exceptionally tight clearances(unforgiving in the sand and muck) and the other is a somewhat crude(by modern standards), albeit utterly reliable and effective "assault rifle". One is chambered in a .22 caliber varmint(four-legged) round; the other is chambered in a .30 caliber varmint(two-legged) round. One will shoot after being left out in a sand storm; the other will not.
We've all heard it and I've always hated the whole argument that states: "the 5.56 round was never meant to kill, it was meant to incapacitate." Bull. Shite. Bollocks. C'mon, who is going to tell that one to the troops? Get in line... yeah right. Wait! I've got a great idea--just think of it--a yellow ribbon sticker for your gas-guzzling SUV that reads:
"Support Our Troops Because the 5.56mm Round Was Never Meant To Kill, Just Incapacitate"
So what happens when your garden variety AK weilding "skinny", Chechen, Serbian-para, towelhead, jungle-monkey or whatever gets popped with a few rounds of 5.56 and, instead of immediately doing some serious moves straight outta "Breakin'"(1984,yeah!) and slumping to the ground, he sits or goes prone and keeps-a-cappin'?? Soldiers get killed, that's what happpens. The 5.56mm for an assault rifle is about as Europellet-esque and Metrosexual as the 9mm for a proper fighting handgun. Actually, I rather like shooting my nines. And I love 9x18 Mak. But the .45 puts 'em down and it's easier to suppress... it's my 1st choice for now.
The point is, for me, 5.56mm is strictly for paper and prairie dogs. It's other purpose is to save ham-fisted politicians some money.
Posted by: chachi at November 30, 2005 04:38 AM (gdDWx)
152
Hey, Emptyhandkiller!!! Are you there? Did you read what that turd Admiral Tigerclaw said about us? What are we gonna do about it?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:19 AM (sIKoc)
153
I am here, brainbuster. I have read the Admiral's latest post. I have also realized something about him. Apparently, he is size challenged. He is probably some kind of a dwarf. If he can't hang onto a light M 16, then he is even weaker than I thought. If he DID actually go through basic training somewhere, I am sure he didn't have his own tent. I am sure he slept in the colonel's tent to keep the old man warm at night.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 30, 2005 07:23 AM (sIKoc)
154
LMAO!!!! Oh, emptyhand, you are killing me!!! I would almost be ashamed to fight Admiral Tigerclaw.... What glory would there be, slapping around a midget? I have to admit, tho, it sure would be funny to watch! Emptyhand, what are we gonna do about this, now that Admiral is a little shrimp?
Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:29 AM (sIKoc)
155
What shall we do with him, brainbuster? Like an undersized lobster, we must release him. Release him from our plans of beating him up and humiliating him. I wonder if he WAS a soldier. I wonder if the armed forces had a special "Midget Brigade", made up of timy soldiers who could run under tanks and fences. Brainbuster, we cannot continue to direct our energies to a person who is so small, weak, tiny, and afraid.
Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 30, 2005 07:41 AM (sIKoc)
156
I guess you are right, emptyhand. I really wanted to beat up Admiral Tigerclaw, but not anymore. You are so wise... thank you for the tips on fighting... I promise to always practice them! See you later, Emptyhand!
Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:45 AM (sIKoc)
157
Well chachi... I have to disagree... First off, when hit, the person's going to have to shake off the blow before the followup round takes him out. I doubt he'll withstand more than two rounds... especially from a decent marksman. A headshot will probably be lethal no matter what the round used.
Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 30, 2005 02:26 PM (aXrGS)
158
Listen to what I have to say please. The 5.56x45mm caliber is not bad only the ammunition used. The current M855 cartridge was good for awhile but it is just time to upgrade now. Soldiers who have tested the new Mk.262 ammunition love it and it would be the perfect way to make the M16 and M4 much more lethal without switching to a whole new caliber. As soon as we adopt the Mk.262 and make AP and tracer versions of the round I am certain that there will be no more complaints about 5.56x45mm ammunition lacking stopping power. While we could switch to 6.8x43mm I think just upgrading to a better 5.56x45mm cartridge would be better.
Here is an article on the ammo taken from Global Security website:
AA53, Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Special Ball, Long Range Mk 262 Mod 0
The Mk 262 Mod 0 quickly earned an enviable reputation in Afghanistan for excellent accuracy and superior terminal performance. Kills were made with this load out to 700 meters. According to one account, in one engagement two SF operators armed with SPRs killed 75 Taliban with 77 rounds. Upgraded to become the current MK 262 Mod 1, this load features a 77-grain Sierra MatchKing with a cannelure for reliable operation in full-automatic weapons. Ordnance Gelatin tests showed improvements in depth of initial yaw and consistency over the M855 cartridge. Work began for incorporation of Mil-SPEC primer and cartridge case, packaging and specification. Initial SPR weapons and AA53 field reports very positive. The MK 262 MOD 0 was specifically developed for use in the MK 12 SPR. A total of 27 different Off-the-Shelf cartridges were tested, leading to a down select to three, (73 gr. Berger, 87 gr. PRL, and 77gr. Sierra) Berger sold and moved facilities, causing manufacturing reliability issues, PRL shut down, leaving Sierra. The Navy, Army and USMC match teams used initial COTS load with success. The manufacture was willing to work with Government requirements. It demonstrated consistent initial yaw in soft tissue between 3-4 inches at ranges from 15Â’ to 300 meters. This enables engagements out to 600 meters (800 possible depending on conditions). It greatly enhances the capability of the M16 or M4A1 Carbine (2 minute of angle accuracy very realistic, vs 3-5 minute of angle with M855). On 28 October 2002 The Virginia Contracting Activity, on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency, announced [Solicitation Number MDA908-03-Q-0008] that it intended to solicit and negotiate with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. on a sole source basis to award a contract for MK262, Mod 0, 5.56MM 77 Grain LR Ammunition. If no affirmative written documentation, technical specifications, and pricing are received within 5 days of this synopsis challenging this intended award, to the effect that a comparable source is available or that it is more advantageous, a contract will be established with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090.
Posted by: 5.56x45mm is not bad... at December 01, 2005 02:53 PM (dTpok)
159
"Maybe H&K's cartridgeless ammunition will allow the military to adopt a larger round with a weapon like the H&K G11, without the disadvantage of weight."
Ummm, the G-11's round is 4.7mm. Almost no stopping power. Anywho, I think they would've been better off in iRaq with G3s, UMPs, USP45s, and the like. None of that 5.56mm BS.
Posted by: Canucklehead at December 03, 2005 10:59 AM (1R+36)
160
First off, have no experience with the M-16 family at all. But served in a european army that is issued the G-3 (7.62x51 NATO). And I can tell you that if you don't keep it clean, it will stop working. Our Army is/was fanatical about keeping those clean for that reason.
With us the weapon has seen service under arctic as well as in dessert type conditions (mostly in Lebanon and Afghanistan). But not seen much combat since we do mostly peacekeeping. But even then it's at least taken to the range now and then. An yup...if kept clean - BANG! every time. If not...the shooter is left with a few duds when the call to cease fire comes.
Personally this most often happened not becouse of
a dirty weapon, but becouse, when shooting from the prone position, it's simply a bit hard to use the lodading arm properly. You don't pull that all the way back, the reciver wont go all the way forward, and you would have to push it manually the rest of the way forward...
What I wanted to say was, weight is not the only problem of the G3 familly...
Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 05:02 AM (ww2me)
161
Another comment on the G3:
Weight: yes, carrying it is a bitch - in the beginning...after a while, no problem...but then I was never issued more than 5 mags worth (100 rounds).
I would say for the weight issue, it's not the weight of the rifle itself, but the weight and bulk of the ammo that is the problem in that regard (probably obvious but say it anyway).
Second: Firing the 7.62 NATO round in the G3 rifle and acurasy. If you only fire it now and then, and the only a few rounds, yes many will be a bit intimidated by the recoil etc. But with familiarization, no problem at all. And the acuracy is more than acceptable. Even follow up shots, double taps etc was never a problem for me. But could probably be done faster with a lighter round, but I have no experience with the 5.56.
The G3 on full auto...hmmm....in our Army only used for what we called motivation shooting...pure fun at the end of the day on the range.
Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 05:16 AM (ww2me)
162
I used a G3 when I was in the army. In fact I've got one at home now, since I'm in the Norwegian equivalent of the National Guard. I have to say, out of all the weapons I've fired (G3, M16, M4, G36, Mp5), if I was in Iraq I'd take the G3 over all the others. When I was in the army, my G3 got dragged through all sorts of shite. Most notably was a fairly crappy day we had that included swimming with the weapon, crawling through sand and mud with it, then the day after we had a shooting competition, where I put ten rounds all within the eight-points circle at 200m without having cleaned the weapon after the previous day. In winter, if we got chunks of snow and ice in the chamber, we'd just shake it out and continue firing. And the .308 Winchester kicks major arse! Someone here said the G3 kicks too much to be controllable with a rapid rate of fire. This is simply a matter of getting used to it. I didn't find it a problem at all. True, it is a big, heavy weapon, but I'd take the G3 over anything else. With the collapsible stock it's even better, and we'll be getting aimpoint sights for them pretty soon. I love my G3 
Posted by: Sem at December 04, 2005 05:18 AM (eYxkx)
163
Most notably was a fairly crappy day we had that included swimming with the weapon, crawling through sand and mud with it, then the day after we had a shooting competition, where I put ten rounds all within the eight-points circle at 200m without having cleaned the weapon after the previous day. In winter, if we got chunks of snow and ice in the chamber, we'd just shake it out and continue firing.
-----------
Have no problem believing that it still worked after all of that. But I bet you cleaned it after shooting the thing, and for mud and crap to enter that rifle you really have to work hard.
And yeah, I've just a G3 in all sorts of weather, from below -30C to +45C, in rain, snow and mud...
The few times it misfired it was my own fault, not the rifles (uncomplete loading).
A problem is perhaps the magazines. If you keep them fully loaded over time, the top will crack...so inspect them often.
Anyway, apart from the odd "dog" as someone put it, Id say most rifles are as good as the owner makes them. Keep it clean inside, and they will work. In some climates it requires more work, but thats with any kind of kit...
Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 08:28 AM (ww2me)
164
I'm an old fashioned 76 yr old Korean war veteran
whose basic weapon was the Garand M-1 which we all thought was a pretty useful piece. Simply constructed and rugged; if you got it dirty just
slosh it in the nearest creek and keep on firing. Unfortunalety, I guess there aren't many creeks in Iraq but on the other hand, it was used in WWII by Patton's outfit in North Africa.
Posted by: Charles at December 04, 2005 01:18 PM (vhu5J)
165
Just a comment on the G3: the recoil really isn't a problem once you get used to it(although that might take some 3-4000 rounds). When doing combat road drills i can quite easily stick all my shots on-target at a range of 30-50 meters doing 2 shots+ pr second in single-shot mode from a crouching position. From 10-15 meters i can stick all shots on-target when using auto-fire. This really isn't that difficult, you just have to get used to the recoil, and maybe most important, the weight of the gun. The only problem with this weapon is that it needs larger magazines, 20 shots go WAY too fast...
Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 02:38 PM (kyJMd)
166
"The only problem with this weapon is that it needs larger magazines, 20 shots go WAY too fast..."
Yep. My unit used to carry eight mags in the pouches and one in the gun. Gave us 180 rounds to play with, which is a fairly decent number, but 30-round mags would definitely be nice to have!
Posted by: Sem at December 04, 2005 02:47 PM (eYxkx)
167
As for accuracy, 80% of the time i hit stationary targets at 200-250 meters with the regular sights(no scope, red point, etc).
As i've never seen real combat, i can't say how my aiming would be in such an event, but the g3's accuracy IS better than most people believe.
Jamming: doesn't happen to "new" g3's. The "only" thing that makes the g3 jam, is years and years of constant use... I was issued a new(of course, it wasn't new, just hadn't been used before..) g3, and i loved that gun. Used it for five days straight without cleaning it, in mud, sand, rain etc... Shot somwhere around 8-9000 rounds over those five days, when i took it apart it had a THICK layer of (don't know the english word)"shit" everywhere. But it never jammed on me.. Even old weapons only get jams some 1 out of 1500-2500 shots..
As for squad machine-guns, we use the MG3 7,62*51. Yes, almost exactly the same that the germans used in WW2. And it works...brilliantly. It's heavy(don't remember exactly, but somewhere around 8 kg's), but I personally love it. Rate of fire UP TO 1200 rpm!! It eats brick walls!! And it doesn't jam that often. The only negative thing i have to say about it, is that cleaning it is like hell on earth. Also, it is quite accurate when you get used to it. One of the MG-men in my platoon constantly hit the target with the first shot of his burst(tracer), at 300-500 meters!
Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 03:34 PM (kyJMd)
168
That would be 11,5 kg's for the MG3.....
Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 03:37 PM (kyJMd)
169
Im not in the military but I support the troops, the war, and the president. I just wish someone would "mow down" our friggin liberal press. They never show anything positive. Most people I know dont trust the media and ignore the main stream press and all of it crap. I am glad to be able to read something postive from the war. KEEP IT UP, YOU GUYS KICK ASS!!!
Posted by: diskfailure at December 04, 2005 04:36 PM (TtsA5)
170
I see I'm not the only fan of the MG3 here. Can't beat the MG3 for rate of fire and the punch it packs! Even though it's a bitch to haul around sometimes, when you plunk it down and start firing it's more than made up for in fun factor!
And it tears through almost anything like a lightsaber
And it tears through almost anything like a lightsaber
Posted by: Sem at December 05, 2005 04:47 AM (eYxkx)
171
what do the americans think of there australian ally in the combat and mates scene
Posted by: aussy_person at December 05, 2005 06:51 AM (NEOKT)
172
what do the americans think of there australian ally in the combat and mates scene
Posted by: aussy_guy at December 05, 2005 06:52 AM (NEOKT)
173
Wow, there is quite a pile of mis-information here. Im not going to rant. As an Infantryman I can tell you that the M16A4's we trained with on Fort Benning, and the M4A4's we use perform well. If you keep them clean, and dont over-lube them (which attracts dirt, and residue) they perform well. Ive always had good results with the dry lube you can obtain from any gun shop. The Bde. CSM was handing out bottles of the stuff to see how it worked so as to decide to buy it in bulk.
Beside the point- as far as the issue of the M16/M4 family of rifles reliablity is concerned, i see no major issues. Mine performs quite well, with M855 or M200 blank ammo. Just keep it clean. Sometimes you get a worn extractor and that leads to "failure to extract problems", or bent magazine lips lead to "double-feeds" but these are easily fixed. Just take care to inspect your magazines before you stick them in your mag pouches.
It is true that the M16A2-A4 rifles are prone to jamming at times, but most of the time its the operators fault for improper cleaning. You MUST maintain this weapon. Clean the locking-lugs, and the inside of the upper reciever. Clean the bolt-carrier AND bolt. Very important. More than once ive seen people reassemble their rifles with the ring-gaps on their BOLTS all lined up- this leads to jamming because of gas pressure problems. Try it, youll see. And one word "dental pick". Some of you know what im talking about.
Sometimes you get a lemon, and get a rifle that doesent work well. Ive seen that. In that case turn it into your local armorer and get a new one. I am in the United States Army Infantry, and i can tell you, the M16/M4 family is a good system- and like anything, it only works as well as you treat it.
Posted by: Chris at December 05, 2005 10:11 AM (L8r/r)
174
The AK family is designed for easy maintanance, and ease of use by conscript soldiers. Trying to accurize this weapon is like trying to polish a turd. All this talk about sub MOA aks... rubbish! The 7.62x39 M43 loses much of its velocity after 300M and many of the 47's found floating around today are barely capable of hitting man sized targets at 300M. The 5.56x45 M855 maintains ballistic advantage for many reasons. When im qualifying with my M4, (i consistantly shoot expert) i hit the 300M almost every time. try doing that with an AK 47 (the AK-74 being slighty more capable when it comes to accuracy)
Before i joined the Army i was a gun nut, and still am. Only now, i get much more real-life, hands on experience. The M16A4 is currently being tested and fielded by the Army Marksmanship unit and many of these high accurized rifles (Special Purpose Rifles) are being tested here at benning. These rifles are accurized, yes.... but they are hitting targets at 1000 Meters with this system. The SDM rifles alone are capable of first shot hits at up to 800... try doing THAT with any kind of accurized AK.
The SVD drugunov is losly based on the kalashnikov design. Of of the main differences is a short-stroke gas piston, which helps dampen the rear-ward energy enduced by the moving parts. Plus a longer barrel. This rifle is CAPABLE of 800 M hits, but is by no means a sub MOA rifle. You would be LUCKY to hit a target at 800M with the SVD.
The 5.56x45 is a great round, and shot placement is key to killing your target. you hit a man in the head, or chest... see what happens.
Posted by: chris at December 05, 2005 10:22 AM (L8r/r)
175
First off Chris I believe the person said the AK was only MOA which is easily believable with a custom barrel, do a little research into the Vepr line of rifles and you will see what can be done with the so called "Turd" AK.
As for any .223 projectile at 1000 yards??
Please note the standard .308 gets unstable at around 1000 yards and that alone is the main reason most of the long range bench guys go up to a short magnum .308 or more to reach 1000 with enough push.
What were they shooting depleted uranium in the .223?? Let's see a 170GR .223 Hmmmm... out of a M16? sorry dude have to be a little skeptical on that one.
Maybe against PARKED planes or cars?
Note: The wind drift on any .223 rounds even the 70Gr gets to be insane at 1000 yards
(12 feet of drift in only 10 mph wind)
Posted by: Marty at December 05, 2005 11:42 AM (0LFzx)
176
.223 was invented cause they wanted a round that wounded. A wounded soldier (Iraq: civilian that is) will need help form other soldiers. A dead comrade can be left behind.
.308W, 30-06, .303British and 8x57 was all designed to kill at considerable ranges.
The 8mm round is capable of penetrate 20mm of steel at a whopping 800 meters range (Tungsten AP core), it is needless to say that any kind of body armour will be penetrated.....
The best all round weapon/army rifle must be the HK G3 chambered for the .308 round. Of course the soldier can't carry as many rounds as if it was .223. But hey! he doesn't need to!as any round aimed correctly will be deadly at every distance the shooter can see the target.
He doesn't need to spray the enemy with multiple rounds.
The rifle with its delayed roller locking mechanism is rock solid.
Later versions also incorperate rails to mount whatever gay equipment that's considered useful...
For the squad automatic weapon (SAW) the best weapon would be the WW2 MG42/later MG3.
With its extreme reliability, high versatility, high rate of fire (1200-1500 rpm) and heavy round (preferable the 8x57mm), in the hands of a trained crew it still lives up to be the "Chainsaw of ww2" (AKA Hitlers chainsaw). It has two weaknesses, the aftermarket (after ww2 )linked belt that lets the cartrigdes slip in the clip an can cause jamming. The other is the weight 11kg.
For close quarter fighting a Soumi submachine gun with high capacity drum or box clip would be nice. 9 mm would do just fine (for close quarters that is).
These are all but the G3 ww2 weapons, made to kill with one hit. When it is decided to take no prisoners and kill everyone disregarding if they are civilians or combatants (as Falluja) these kinds of weapons will allways do the job....
very well combat proven...
Posted by: Viking at December 05, 2005 03:27 PM (fQQ0C)
177
Thought I would add an ammendum here, since it looks like we have a return to sensibilities.
The new 77gr Mk 262 Mod O ammo, which I have had almost no experience with yet (so take this as personal experiance/opinion) is that it was created to provide better downrange accuracy and terminal ballistic performance at longer ranges (BTW, from what I understand, the round does not perform well in the M-4; it was designed for Special Purpose precision platforms-not regular line combat use. Black Hills is a great company, but it is a small company). This was a result of a number of studies, not the least of which was one performed at the US Army's Wound Ballistics Lab, which gave the 5.56 generally high marks for permanent wound channels at ranges less than 400 meters. This comes from fragmentation of the high velocity projectile, causing an energy dump which in turn causes tissue and vascular disruption and multiple wound channels. After 200-400M the 5.56 (M-193 55gr or the M-855 62gr) loses velocity (below 2500fps) to the point that it no longer seperates at the cannelure, and thus becomes just a .22 slug, making a .22 hole. The short barrels of the M-4 (14 inches) other spec ops/LE barrels (11.5-16 inches) of course do not help this velocity drop off.
As for the 7.62x51mm Nato (more or less the .308 Winchester-there are some slight differences between NATO and SAMMI specs)- think about this- it does not produce a significant permanent wound channel in any flesh until about 15-25 Cm of penetration, thus no "gaping hole" as has been previously described. 7.62 Ball does not fragment (unless the operator is using ammo designed to-different story and against US military and International law (Hauge Conv #4 and Law of Land Warfare). It may be deformed by striking bone mass or personal equipment, but it produces a lovely little .30 hole in, and only a slightly larger exit (that is if it has had the chance to even yaw slightly). Look at energy specs of the 7.62 and you will see it has great down range energy- unfortunately that energy passes right through the target, disrupting tissue in a temporary wound channel and not much of a significant permanent one. Sorry guys, 7.62 is not the answer, but neither is 5.56.
If accuracy and downrange ballistic performance is desired, then you need something heavier than the "lightweight" 5.56 rounds. You also want a hyper velocity projectile (3500-3000 fps muzzle) which is easy to pull off with the 5.56, but pretty brutal with a 7.62, on the weapon and operator. As conventional weapons go, the "mid-calibers" will be the way to go, provided that the platform/barrel twist/and bullet construction are balanced. The 6.8 is only the beginning- both the Russians and Chinese are experimenting (and adopting) mid-cal 6mm calibers as we speak.
The point of all this is thus- first you find the aummunition, then you design a weapons platform around it. But even before you do that, you must acknowledge the terrain that you are going to fight in. The arid desert combat allows for greater contact ranges than triple canopy jungle. A round that performs well at CQB ranges may have dismal performance at 700-800 meters. If you are looking for a "do-all" combat round, that is pretty darn difficult with the legal limitations in place. Otherwise you could mix your 7.62 with explosive, soft-tip, and armor-piercing and have at it.
As far as weapons platforms go, that is a drawn out subject, but it boils down to operator confidence in the reliability of the system, user maintenence, and proper marksmanship. No duh, but most people do not realize that a 5.56-7.62 abdominal/chest wound, unless it hits the liver/speen/heart, does not immediately kill as far as a physiological effect goes. People go down because it fucking hurts and they think they can/should fall/lay moaning and groaning as a social construct. Highly motivated individuals will continue to fight on until they bleed out. Only a heart/CNS shot will truely bring someone down with first shot reliability with a small arm. This is why law enforcment is training away from body mass shooting and goes for center mass/CNS.
Me- I have always had an affinity for the AK series, and used them when ever I could. In Group, I always checked out and old Romanian AKM out of the locker cause it was damned sure easier to clean than the -14s, -16s and M-4s. And reliable in the field for longer durations. The AK series could be manufactured closer tolerence (and some are) to produce that coveted MOA. That is, of course, if the ammo could produce it as well (which it can).
By the way, the 7.62x39mm lead core outperforms the 7.62 NATO in ballistic gel (and a few human test subjects)out to a few hundred yards, after which the 7.62x39 is useless anyway. It will not penetrate foliage or armor nearly as well though.
As a machine gun side note, the MG-3 is a great GPMG, as long as the operator knows what he is doing-using it like an area denial shotgun. It can eat some ammo, and as a few of our European contributors have noted, is a bitch to clean. Sure beats our old pig M-60. The M-249 is a POS. It is nice to have some firepower at the squad level, but the military would have been better served with a shortened M-60 POS than a 5.56mm one. Thank god for FN and the MAG, aka M-240.
As for the 30 rd mags for the G-3 (and FN/L1A1)- I've used them. It is nice to have the extra 10 rounds, but their profile prevents you from going prone, and they sometimes jam on the last few rounds. The L1A1 30 rders were used in the 7.62 Bren, so that wasn't so much an issue cause of the downward feeding mag.
The G-36. Fired one when they first came out and loved it. Still it is just a platform and 5.56 at that. Now, if they come out in a mid-caliber, say a 6mm 110-120 gr. pushing 3200 fps (and can stand up to that abuse), somebody is in trouble.
And for our Aussie contributor- I haven't rubbed shoulders with a mate for over 15 years (RAAF Darwin-1989), but they are some of the finest people and soldiers I ever had the chance to work with. Professional and fearless.
And Marty- dead on about drift at 1000m.
Posted by: Ferg at December 05, 2005 05:47 PM (9ZCOj)
178
Hey Marty, first of all i live and work here at benning, and i can tell you- the boys at AMU are working with fully customized, reworked, free-floated, ect M16A4's that they are using to shoot targets at the 800-1000 yard line EFFECTEVLY. With optics AND iron sites. Pick up a copy of soldiers magazine and you can read it for yourself. Its published here on benning (i think?), and me and a certain officer go over to AMU all the time. Hes a gun nut and the customize some of his stuff for him.
I was skeptical myself when people started talking about shooting 5.56 even out to 800. But when we started taking championships with guys in the President's 100 and AMU with match, iron sight M16A4's, i was in shock. they used custom ammunition of course, each load customized for every range up to 1000. But the result is nontheless impressive and almost unbelieveable.
They are fielding a similar rifle to our guys in iraq and afganistan, to our Squad Designated Marksmen. It gives our rifle squads a tactical advantage with those hard to reach targets, without making themself a target with a "special weapon" such as the M24. A 35% or better increase with these SDM rifles with iron sites alone and a long range, high hit probability. Put an ACOG on them and youve got a rifle thats effective, and lethal on point targets out to 800M. The BDC sheets on these rounds for wind are accurate, and if your worth your salt you can somewhat predict the near and far winds enough to put your round on target- but hey, thats what spotters are for right?
I agree on the 7.62x51 losing stablity around 1000M. The instructors here preach 800M, and to take 1000M shots in only the calmest and nessicary situations. They keyhole sometimes, 1000M is a long way to hit a man center-mass, and the 168gr Special Ball dosent hit as hard as some might like at this range.
I agree with those that say the AK series of rifles is unmatched in reliablity. All the rumors are true, unless you pop a thermite grenade and set in on the reciver- this puppy will go bang every time. Since most of our engagments take place under 300 M anyway, the AK might be a good choice to take with you to the field every now and again.
I just have a hard time seeing an accurate AK. The giant bolt assembly w/rod moving around, the stamped recievers, rivited and clinky. Plus the energy loss of the 7.62x39 does not lend itself to accurate long range shooting- but hey, ive seen these guys shoot an M16A4 @ 1000 M... so i guess anything is possable!
Thanks.
Posted by: chris at December 06, 2005 08:13 AM (L8r/r)
179
Yeah, Chris, those new SDM rifles are racking up. I know of one (unofficial) story where a DM in an A-team element took out possibly 100 (apparently very stupid) Taliban in a 12 hour period with one. I know from experience that those platforms are capable of single hole groups out to 200 meters. My issue is with the energy left at 800-1000 meters.
It is "possible" to get the tolerences of the AK system down to MOA accuracy. The only problem is that the higher tolerance you have (ala M-16), the higher chance of platform failure.
As an aside, the older Russian troops are longing for a return to the 7.62 M-43 AKs. Many are as dissatisfied with the performance of the 5.45 as the US troops are with the 5.56. Interesting.
Posted by: Ferg at December 06, 2005 08:43 AM (9ZCOj)
180
As a future Marine looking at the possibuility of being posted somewhere such as Iraq, i hope to be able to carry my own personal sidearm. I have heard rumors that the Army and Marine Corps are currently reissuing the old .45 autos as well as replacing the newer (and piss-ass weak) M249 with the older (and still better) Vietnam-era M60. My father was a Marine gunner in Vietnam and he absolutly loves the M60, even today when he hears the sound of one on TV or out at a MG convention, he gets this euforic look on his face and he cant stop smiling. I've fallen in love with the Springfield Armory's new .40 autos, with a lighter recoil than the .45 but still retaining massive amounts of knockdown power (esspecially firing Springfield's new jacketed hollow point round) it has become my weapon of choice for nearly any situation. With my desire to become a scout sniper for the corps (only mildly influenced by Mr. Hathcock) i have decided that a good old WWII model would be almost the perfect sniper rifle. However it is an odd weapon that not a whole lot of people associate with desirable combat traits. I absolutly adore my old German Mauser K98. When mounted with a scope it become almost insanly accurate at ranged from 100 for 500 yards, from there i would just go to the M82A1 .50 Barret anyway, that or a 300 Win-Mag. Since most military sniper rifles are bolt-action to begin with, reloading speed wont be affected at all, and with a 5-round stripper-clip fed internal magazine, it nearly rivals the ammo capacity of the most common Win 700s as well as equaling the ammo capacity of the Barret. That, and how often do you see a Marine strolling around a base with a fully operation antique slung over his shoulder? The real seller for me was the old Mauser 8mm round. For someting that sounds like it would be weaker than the already pea-shooter status Berreta 9mils the Army and Marines are issueing now, most would avoid the round entirly. Once you shoot one however, you realise this is not normal 8mm cartrige. Back in the 1940s the round was known to knock a man down and put him out of action with just a single shot, in Bastogne, many paratroopers were hit through the trees that they hid behind. There were also common reports of the German rounds punching clean through walls and even (although the reports were extramly rare) puncturing the armor on jeeps, halftrack, and even the Army's M8 Greyhound armored cars. The K98 was made famouse by the movie "Enemy at the Gates" when it was put into the hand's of Germany's best sniper in Stalingrad. In the hand of an expert, the K98 is an extreamly deadly weapon, it's legacy rivaling that of the infamouse O3A3 Springfield.
Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 10:13 AM (NIypM)
181
Sorry to double-post guys but while reading through a post a few posts up i started thinking again. The poster (sorry i dont remember who it was, im too lazy to scroll up and check) mnetioned how the 7.62x39 doesnt reliably penatrate through body armor or personal equipment at long ranges. While discussing this with my friend adam seated next to me (yes i am at school right now) we discussed the origonal reason for the military's adoprion of the 5.56mm round. It occured to military experts back in the 60s that if you shoot someone and dont kill them, then they're incapacitated and so require one or more soldiers to assist them to an aid station, meaning that with one round you have effectivly put two or three men out of action. However, given our current enemy, that situation does not materialize and so, does not apply. While it is true that the .223 round is more accurate at longer ranges, anything short of a heart or head shot wont put a man down, esspecially not a fanatic dead-bent on emptying all 30 of his 7.62s into you. Enter anouther invention made by the Germans in WW2 that scared GIs shitless. it was called the STG44 by the Germans and designated the MP-44 by the Allis. It was essentially the grandaddy of the AK-47, resembling it in both likness and rugednedd. The Nazi troops loved the gun for it's larg mag capacity, reliabulity, but most of all, it's full auto capabuility. It was the German answer to the American BAR and British Bren Gun. The BAR (as most of you know) was chambered for the most common American round of the war, the good old 30.06, the Bren also fired .30 Cal rounds. The STG44 however was most fear for, you guessed it, it's hard-hitting 8mm. For instance, those bolt action rounds that went through walls at a rate of two a second, now came bursting through at five or six a second. Instead of catching a single slug like the GIs used to, now it was three or four that impacted. Instead of seriously wounded, many who were hit by the STG died before they hit the ground. In a war where your enemy does not care for his own casualties, or his wounded, why bother shooting to wound, exactly what the .223 was designed to do (ironicly it failed at it's intended purpose thirty some-odd years ago in Nam too). So I suggest that the military revert it's strategy. Many civilian ARs and M-16s (including my own) have been modified to fire the .308 Nato round. That, or revive the old M-14s, effectivly equiping entire squads with what are essentially squad automatic weapons. The origonal miltary issue version of the M-14 came with a standar issue bipod, a 20 round detachable magazine and fire-select switch that included safe, semi, and fully auto. When you add an M60 into the mix, you have, quite simply a wall of lethal .308 lead flying at the enemy, in true immature high-school senior fasion, I would like to refer to that as "lead gang-rape". The .308 also solves anouther problem that Marines and troppers are facing in Iraq, their .223s wont penetrate the mud and cinderblock walls of iraqi buildings. The .308 as been known to turn brick walls into dust in a matter of seconds, if an entire squad, or entire platoon laid down fire on a single building, it can be guarenteed that no more return fire would come from that building. True that the .308 is not as accurate at the longer ranges that the .223s are, but hey, our enemy prefers to engage our troops up close where their own 7.62s are more effective as well. Then again, what kind of competant military leader listens to a high-school senior anyway? So for now my suggestions simply fall on deaf ears. On my way to pyhsics I would just like to sign off by saying, Semper Fi Marines, Carry On!!
Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 11:21 AM (NIypM)
182
The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is not drum fed. It is belt fed. The ammo comes in belts of 200 in plastic containers that snap under the gun. It kind of looks like a drum, but it is most definitely belt fed.
I used one for several years in the USMC infantry and they are OK, but they WILL jam when dirty. I kept mine clean as a whistle (use the funny switch-blade tool to clean the gas cylinder and piston) and the action well lubed with the Elmer's glue-like arctic lubricant and never had major problems, but I imagine that level of cleanliness would be very difficult in the sand.
Also, 5.56mm is for pansies.
Posted by: anonymous coward at December 06, 2005 11:33 AM (owMhK)
183
Small cock gun nut scum. FOAD.
Posted by: you at December 06, 2005 02:07 PM (Z3fFl)
184
Well, all i know is what works. There is no perfect rifle round, and the 5.56 does lack terminal knockdown power at longer ranges, but is still a killer nontheless.
The AK-47 and 74, the PKM, Valmat, SVD's and RPKs can all kiss my ass because i dont like being shot at.
Since were going on about good rounds, i kind of like the idea of what the army is going to- that new 6mm round. Ive got an old M96b Swedish mauser back home that i used to shoot elk with. Most people might say this round to be a bit small- but you should see what it does to these elk. They dont go any fucking where. The sectional density and co-efficency of this projectile is almost perfect. Overall, a bit long for an assault rifle- but this new round we are testing is on the right track. Exceptionally accurate, and great trajectory. on a side note- i bought a swede for i think around 150 bucks. made in 1912, this little bastard is at least a 1 MOA or better- with iron core surplus ammo made in 1957! yes.... if anyone were to ask me, id say our new 6mm round is the way to go.
Posted by: chris at December 06, 2005 03:19 PM (L8r/r)
185
You bought a swede.......?? Human trafficing...??
Posted by: Norwegian at December 06, 2005 03:45 PM (U42FO)
186
well honesty. anything that isnt .223 would do the trick. Hell, a .22 Mag could fuck you up if you tag someone with a headshot. JFK was hit with a .23 caliber round and it killed him instantly, just goes to show that smalleer isnt necissarily weaker, just all depends on velocity and down-range hit power with a side-order of accuracy and efficency.
Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 03:49 PM (NIypM)
187
Having trained with a G3 during the cold war I recently had the chance to shoot a G36 - no comparison. The G3 was a bit on the heavy side, so the recoil wasn't too rough, but it went straight back into the shooter's shoulder. The G36 is light, so the low recoil results in muzzle jump. Follow-up shots were much easier with the G3, with the additional advantage of being able to hit a target through relatively soft cover (wood, walls, cars).
So what if you can't carry as many rounds of .308 as you can of .223, at least you've been trained to make every shot count, so you'll end up with more effective firepower.
Another plus for the G3 is its ruggedness - the only failure I had during 15 months was when a blank melted in the chamber.
Posted by: Jens at December 06, 2005 04:01 PM (CgBK8)
188
"The G3 was a bit on the heavy side, so the recoil wasn't too rough, but it went straight back into the shooter's shoulder. The G36 is light, so the low recoil results in muzzle jump."
That's what I found as well. The G3 is predictable in its recoil, the 36 jumps all over the place. I did double-taps and speed shooting with both guns, and I actually liked the G3 the best. Sure, it's heavy, but that takes all of a week to get used to. I wouldn't abandon .308 for the world!
Posted by: Sem at December 06, 2005 04:46 PM (OEW3x)
189
For what it's worth, here's the address of my website which deals with my work in Iraq as a security-contractor - http://bane.2hell.com - it's mainly just photos as I don't have the time (or energy) to blather on and on.
We mainly work convoys from Mosul and Erbil in the north to Tikrit, Baghdad and Al Hilla in the south. We carry Browning HP 9mmP handguns (I'd rather have a 1911a1), AK47 (folding-stock) and currently use M249's as our heavy (*cough*) weaponry. There are a number of changes that we'd like to see, but the main thrust is this: Give us weapons of the largest calibre that we can comfortably handle.
Posted by: Andy C at December 06, 2005 05:34 PM (kmIIc)
190
Why are Americans so inbred and into guns?
I have considered this for quite a while and have decided that the best solution to preventing future mass murder and wars (since you always like starting them) is some sort of mass US sterilisation.
I lost my faith when you voted for Bush the second.
Posted by: Darren S at December 06, 2005 11:26 PM (Wh0pk)
191
No wonder we (Australian Army) switched to the Styers...
We ditched the M16s in the 90's, and most who handled them said they were equally as crap in the jungles of Nam and Timor...
Posted by: aussie at December 07, 2005 04:17 AM (V2Vhv)
192
Andy C: Any of you guys use G3s?
Posted by: Sem at December 07, 2005 06:07 AM (ptgfl)
193
Sem: I used a G3 in Angola years ago - very accurate and reliable weapon, but I found that the plastic stock became brittle over time and easily shatters; perhaps it can't handle the heat?
There are 3 rifle-calibres which are easily available here:
1. 5.56mm
2. 7.62mmx39
3. 7.62mmx54R
I haven't seen any 7.62x51mm (aka .308 Win) ammunition here at all, although I have seen a number of military guys carrying a scoped M14. The ammo obviously exists somewhere, but we can't get any of it - yet ;-)
Another point: we're not military personnel (any longer), so obviously we can use whichever bullet-type we see fit.
Posted by: Andy C at December 07, 2005 09:38 AM (kmIIc)
194
Yeah the STG-44 (sturmgwhere 44') that fired the 7.92x32 Kurtz has a cousin- called, as many of you know, the G3 Assault rifle. The G3 is an excellent weapon, and so is the CETME and FN-FAL. All good in my book, but the German G3 is probably on the top of that list. Ive fired all three, and found the finish of the G3 to be excellent, and the same for the FAL. Easy to control if you are used to heavy recoil, but by no means a precision rifle. Id give the best of these MABYE 2 MOA, good enough for urban ops- but NOT CQB. Thats where these G3's lack is in length. just too fucking long to be any good indoors. I hate going inside with even an M16- with the IBA its too clumsy and hard to get around corners. Not practical if you ask me.
Posted by: chris at December 07, 2005 12:42 PM (L8r/r)
195
My father is a retired SEAL. For those naysayers, Capt. D.P.H. served from '68 to '01, was XO of Team 1, CO of Team 5, and CO of BUD/S. In his opinion, the 1911A .45 is the single best pistol in the field. He did not care for the Berettas and Glocks. For 9mm, his preference was the Browning Hi-Power. For rifles, he concurs that the M16 was not the best rifle during his two tours in Vietnam. He actually carried a Colt, the shorter version of the M16. He said it worked ok, but preferred the M14. He also liked the HKMP5. As CO of Team 5 in the mid '80's, they were experimenting with the .50 cal snipe rifle. It started as a meas to take out a jeep at 100yds or a aircraft gun, but soon became a live taget weapon. They also had great success with the .308 sniper rifles which used a modified Remington 700. In the jungle, they used a Benelli pump shotgun with a "duckbill" choke.
Personally, I have a SA MilSpec .45 and love it. I also have a Weatherby Vanguard .30-06 with a Zeiss 3x9x40 Conquest scope. It's my deer rifle and I took two does last month at 180 yds within 15' fromone another. It's a fun shooter. I am interested in a Rock River Arms Tactical CAR A4. If you have any experince with RRA, I'd be curious to hear.
This is a great board. Thanks for letting me post.
Posted by: Doug at December 07, 2005 04:05 PM (WuHXB)
196
Regarding the previous message. I made an error. 100yds should read as 1000yds.
Posted by: Doug at December 07, 2005 04:08 PM (WuHXB)
197
Andy C: Perhaps you should have tried the collapsible-stock version. Obviously it won't melt
I found that one much better! As well as being slightly easier to use in urban warfare.
This whole discussion is great! Lots of interesting viewpoints. I have heard rumours and murmurs saying that 5.56 is too small a caliber for Iraqi ops, but this kinda confirms it.
I found that one much better! As well as being slightly easier to use in urban warfare.
This whole discussion is great! Lots of interesting viewpoints. I have heard rumours and murmurs saying that 5.56 is too small a caliber for Iraqi ops, but this kinda confirms it.Posted by: Sem at December 08, 2005 05:11 AM (4IemL)
198
Sem: Would have been nice to try that, but we weren't given any choice in the matter.
Overall length of our personal rifles is important as we're inside vehicles with barrels protruding through open windows as a deterrent - of sorts. Of course, when we've needed to bail out of a burning vehicle, the stocks have been unfolded very quickly for better accuracy. Some of the guys have side-folding stocks, others have the version which folds underneath (the latter being my preference).
From what I've seen here, 5.56mm is lethal - if it's driven by a good operator, as there's less room for error. It doesn't have the penetration of the larger calibres, of course, which is important here for vehicle-on-vehicle incidents amongst other instances. We tend to use semi-automatic fire on our rifles, so the controllability of M4 vs AK on full-auto is irrelevant to us.
Posted by: Andy C at December 08, 2005 12:43 PM (kmIIc)
199
The posting by Jeff on Nov 16th above refers:
155mm artillery shells are definitely used here in Iraq for IED's - we have tons of the damn things here on an ex-Iraqi ammo-depot.
Posted by: Andy C at December 08, 2005 01:00 PM (kmIIc)
200
My friend and i have noticed that there is in fact a use for the .223 chambered weapons the US issues. while every other trooper in the unit should pack more firepower, the use of what we have dubbed "assault marksmen" if in fact extreamly effective. With the .223 accurate at anywhere from close to long range, when mounted with an adjustable zoom scope, then while the main body of the unit pins the enemy down, the "assault marksmen" takes up position and proceeds to put a round through any exposed body part he can find. If it works with TacTrain, its alost guarenteed to work in the field.
Posted by: Steve at December 08, 2005 01:54 PM (NIypM)
201
Steve, what in the hell are you talking about?
You really need to do a little more research on your subject matter before you post.
Some highlights-
Kennedy was killed (supposedly) by a 6.5mm Carlinco. If you fall in with the conspiracy crowd, it was a 7mm. Not a .22.
A headshot with even a .22 short can "fuck you up" if it is close enough to penetrate the cranium and bounces around like Pac Man. Point- head shots are CNS shots. They work. Some work better than others.
The 8mm Mauser is no better than the Brit .303 or US .30-06 (and certainly not in the same class as the .300 Win Mag), which was replaced by the 7.62x51, which has attempted to be replaced by the 5.56. The Kar-93 bolt action system is a long claw extraction. It is so obsolete it ain't even funny.
The STG-44, of which I have owned one, does not shoot 8mm Mauser, it uses 7.92 Kurz (Pointed out by someone above) which is an intermediate cal/cart just like the 7.62x39 M-43 AK round. Kalisnikov modeled the AK-47 and AKM right off it. The G-3 derived from the CETME from Portugal, which has its roots in the G-43 semi auto from WWII Germany.
I could correct you about some other things, but you get the point. Here is another thing I'll pass on to you as it was passed on to me as a young buck-
"Don't be in such a hurry to die."
As in, go to basic and listen, don't talk, go to advanced school and listen, don't talk, go to your unit and listen, don't talk. Cause until you have had someone try to kill you as hard as you are trying to kill them, you don't know dick. Quit making "suggestions" until you learn.
BTW, where did the little cowardly liberals go? They were just here a few days ago. Here is your answer about why Americans are so "gun nutty"- 1/2 half of all privately owned weapons in the world are here. That means everywhere else in the world the weapons are controlled by the government. Aren't those the same governments you hate and don't trust? Get an ideology, dude.
Posted by: Ferg at December 08, 2005 10:20 PM (9ZCOj)
202
Sorry guys. End of the semester, exams to grade and not enough coffee.
Andy, they letting you bring in anything, or do you have to procure in-country?
Posted by: Ferg at December 08, 2005 10:25 PM (9ZCOj)
203
I guess I have 2 points to make:
1) 7.62mmx39, Iraq should be littered with this type of ammo. The US is the only country that uses the 5.56mm for the POS M16. The Russians do a pretty good job of arming the world with this stuff.
2) Let's talk about the justification of the Iraqi insurgents (read before getting pissed).
LetÂ’s pretend is it 1991, and Iraq just got kicked out of Kuwait, two no fly zones are set up and the US begins regular bombing of Iraq every other week or so. Thousands are killed. Many children between the ages of 9 to 15 get to watch their fathers, mothers, brother, and various other family members over a period of 12 years. Family survivors are angry and want revenge.
Now it is 2003. These kids are now 20 years old or so and one day, the US military shows up to finish Iraq off. All of these kids think the same: “Guess what I plan to get? I plan to get some payback and this isn’t the kind where I kick the local school bully’s ass behind the football field after school, it is the kind of payback where each American soldier I wax is in direct proportion to my lust for killing, happiness, and revenge. I will continue to kill as many Americans as I can until they kill me or I kill every one of them.”
Now imagine tens of thousands of angry youth do this. Gets messy quick doesnÂ’t?
There is also the factor that we invaded Iraq illegally and the guerrilla campaign they should have expected. Honestly, if the Iraqis invaded the US, could you honestly say would not become a “freedom fighter” against the Iraqi invaders? I have had it with this “liberator” bullshit.
The US military there ARE NOT LIBERATORS, they are conquers of the Empire of the United States, and the corporate monopoly for which is stands, one nation, soaked in oil, soon to be destroyed, current offering only slavery and torture for all.
What really sucks is the military believes what they are doing is right. The Bible does say the armies of the antichrist will kill and think they are doing God's work.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 09:48 AM (fnsQZ)
204
I am afraid you are right Scott. It is a little more complicated than that, but you are pretty close.
No one wants to have their soverenty squashed by an Empire. The overall political situation is no different than when I was in the Gulf, circa 1989 (Iran) and 90-91 (Kuwait/Iraq), and 92 (Saudi/UAE/Bahrain). If the American people really understood the politics surrounding our (the West) combat actions there over the last 20 years, they would be pissed.
One thing I learned in my extensive travels is that, while the American fighting man truely wants everyone in the world to be free and self-determinate, most of the world places little value on personal freedom. Right now, the Coalition forces are only serving one purpose- they are keeping Iran and Syria at bay. Once we pull out, look for whatever government we have established in Iraq to collapse soon after.
Posted by: Ferg at December 09, 2005 10:19 AM (9ZCOj)
205
Ferg: No, weapons are procured for us by the head-shed overseas, but no complaints with the AK itself.
I find it somewhat ironic that the insurgency itself is the main reason why the Coalition Forces are still here. No insurgency, no valid excuse to stay.
Posted by: Andy C at December 09, 2005 11:22 AM (kmIIc)
206
Ferg...I still think the concept of revenge is a major factor in Iraq. It is also hard to ignore the evidence that the US government either overtly or ignorantly supports Islamic fundimentalist governments.
1. Clinton went after a Christian leader in Europe that was in the minority and defeating a Muslim enemy. The US overthrew him and solidified a
Muslim government. What has Slovidan Milosevic done to his enemy that we have not done to ours that made him sooo bad we had to intervene and over throw him?
2. Bush 1 and 2 went after a SECULAR leader in Iraq and overthrew the government and installed a Muslim leader. That SECULAR leader is now in
jail. And now in the next 5 to 10 years Iraq will end up as one of the most radical Islamic theocracies in history.
3. China continues to slaughter Christians and we buy from China and invest in their country like there is no tomorrow.
4. Several countries in Africa have Muslim lead governments and they slaughter Christians on a regular basis. Yet we continue to buy oil
from them, and even support the Muslim lead factions to fight against the Christians (ExxonMobil for example has backed the Muslim government while it and in-country Chinese army target Christian for daily genocide operations).
5. All of the Middle East openly suppresses the Christian religion yet we continue to do business with them and no sanctions have been imposed. We invade what is essential to our interests and leave the rest as is.
6. The Muslims complain about Israel and the US tells Israel to give up territory or risk loosing US aid...
7. The US CONTINUES to pressure Egypt into open Democratic elections where the MAJORITY is clearly Muslim fundamentalist. So, once that new government is elected into office then there is yet ANOTHER radical Muslim government. That we both must agree will just LOVE Israel...
The items above span decades and do no apply to one party or the other.
Now without getting into the "end times" or conspiracy agenda, sometimes I can only wonder if the US government actually has a preference to the Muslim religion. Is it possible Bush is a closet Muslim or at the very least, an avid supporter? It does not take one very much time to figure out something is wrong with this picture. Women in Iraq have already complained that they will lose rights in the "new" Iraq and Bush gain has done nothing about it.
Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 11:41 AM (fnsQZ)
207
On #4 above, I left out that it is Muslim government in Sudan that ExxonMobil and the Chinese support.
Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 11:43 AM (fnsQZ)
208
I just have a few thoughts to share with yall. The m16/m4 is not junk, and if you ever used one in combat you would know that. True the fine grain sand is a neusance but it can be overcome by using common sence cleaning procedures such as drilube instead of oil. Shotguns are used for breaching. Rare one shot one kills in CQB. No plastic drum for SAW.
Posted by: Evan Stevens at December 10, 2005 12:39 AM (4S4Dn)
209
I don't believe most people are saying that the m16 is totaly junk, just that it's got some major flaws and is not the most up to date design.
On the other hand the AR/M16...etc..has good accuracy, the mag catch design is a major plus over any of the AK designs.
Also please knock off the
"IF YOU EVER USED ONE IN COMBAT YOU'D KNOW THAT"
I'm a pretty smart puppy (Insert cynical tone here) and feel poor little old me can review a weapon that I've owned three versions of without a whole lota goverment training.
Please note I respect anyone who has served in the millitary, But opinions are just opinions and serving does not make one always right.
Though I do feel that if a design is going to fail it's most likely going to happen in combat :-(
Posted by: Marty at December 10, 2005 04:53 AM (I4KJw)
210
Hey marty,
Ok, to sort of stick up for some of the guys here that may or have may not have been in "combat"- cause you never can tell in here- i will say this- Shooting your privatly owned AR-15 in the field for a day, when your somewhat clean, and not low crawling through the fucking brush and all that other fun stuff we infantryman do- is ALOT different than using the same weapon in a training/combat situation for weeks or a month on end. It just is.
Weather you like it or not, your dirty, tired, lifeless ass is suckin- and sometimes you shoot, move and communicate, shoot, move- aw fuck! didnt close my ejection port cover and now ive got sand in it! For some reason, sometimes, shit just goes wrong.
I can agree though, i keep hearing all this bullshit about "nam".. why dont we get real? yes, "nam" was a hot, humid place and the weapon system is sensitive to corrosion and the bad ammo at the time. clean it.
OH, and for all the wonderful people that come here and rag on the Army- go to hell. Youve never been to Iraq, and you need to shut the fuck up. We have built for those people an entire new social structure- from schools to hospitals, they even have garbage men now. Think about it, these people barely had running water before we got there. Most of them like us too, contrary to popular media expression.
Ever heard of a Wahabbist? look it up smart guys. Youll see that this islamic fanatiscism spread from that mind set- originated from saudi arabia. yes, sometimes when you blow up a guys family with a 500lb wad of falling explosive, he turns on you and will shoot back later. The same goes for some desparate, poor dumb bastards over there who have nothing.
Everything that goes wrong over there is highlighted- but none of the good is ever in the spotlight. Its a small few who are doing the dirty work, and to call us conquisidors is fucking outrageous. Yes, money makes the world turn, but thats not what were doin' buddy. In the words of a great commander- "I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight."
Join the army and find out.
And just an ending note- i enjoy talking with some of you on here, thats why i keep coming back- but some of the things that are said by others are just plain rediculous.
Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Posted by: chris at December 10, 2005 09:12 AM (L8r/r)
211
Well said, Chris.
Posted by: Andy C at December 10, 2005 10:32 AM (kmIIc)
212
Interesting info.
Some accurate, some not.
You seem to suggest that the majority of enemy combatants and carnage is caused by Al Qaeda types from outside of Iraq. Or even Shiite militiamen with Iranian support.
The Pentagon has reported that less than 7% of the insurgency consists of foreign jihadists.
The majority of insurgents are Iraqi nationalists that oppose U.S. foriegn policy in Iraq.
I found your figure of 45,000-50,000 enemy combatants killed interesting. I don't doubt this is factual.
However I do question the wisdom of the wholesale slaughter of those that oppose the administrations political philosophy in Iraq, as though this is some sort of pseudo sporting event where the best man wins, everybody goes home and swallows their pride afterwards.
After all, the mission in Iraq was sold by the administration as a response to the attacks of 9/11, and the supposed war on terrorism.
Not sure how the wholesale slaughter of our political opponenets in Iraq serves this purpose. This is reminiscent of Soviet actions when I was a young Marine.
Posted by: James H. at December 10, 2005 10:17 PM (LbhCW)
213
I wasn't saying that combat use of a weapon isn't the ultimate test of a gun design.
If it can't be broken "Murphy and a Grunt can figure out a way to break it"
Heck my SVD manual even says
"Never dry your rifle by placing it in a fire?"
What I'm saying is that if a given gun is not 100% reliable on a target range it's not going to get reliable all of a sudden by being used in a dirty combat area.
For me a rifle must be...
-----------------------------------------
Fun to shoot
So that makes my upper limit the .308 and nothing with the weatherby name on it.
-----------------------------------------
Accurate
If I can't tell when I screw up then I'm not learning anything.
------------------------------------------
Reliable
If It fails to go bang reliably I won't keep it.
------------------------------------------
More rifles in my collection have been sold for the last 2 reasons the any other.
----------------------------------------------
On the political side of this forum.
The level of hate in the middle east was just fine before we got there, I do not believe for a second that we have made it at all that worse by going in.
Please read the Koran
http://www.icofa.com/quran.htm
Then compare it to the perverted interpetation we are currently fighting accross the globe.
Very simple terms for the US haters in the room.
The guys who bow hate the guys who hop and twirl.
The guys who hop hate the guys who twirl and bow.
The guys who twirl hate the guys who bow and hop.
Please note these are all different factions of the same religion "Islam"
We currently have Iraqi's driving car bombs into each others Wedding celebrations simply because they disagree on how to celebrate Alah.
Now tell me with a straight face that these guys who are blowing each other up over differences of opinion on the Islamic religion are going to ever be accepting of America.
These groups make the German Fascist party look accepting.
You can Quote me on this
The only reason Islamic groups haven't detonated a Nuke on US soil is simply becuase they don't have one....yet.
People in the US/Europe believe that a person is a person no matter what religion they practice.
It would be nice if most of the M.E. felt the same way.
Posted by: Marty at December 10, 2005 11:11 PM (I4KJw)
214
The news is screwing up all of the good things we have done for the people of Iraq. All they will report on is the bad things. In ww2 there was a censorship program instituted by Roosevelt. Now a day the ACLU would go nuts. War is serious business, and the media has no reight interfering with our success. Everyone knows the liberals own the media. John Kerry said we (special forces) are terrorists terrorfying kids in the dark of night. I thought he was once in the service hahaha I never liked him at all. We are doing a fine job, so keep it up and we will be going home soon enough. I will not leave till the job is done. I have seen my family about 60 days in three years. They know what we are doing is important, and as much as they would hate for me to be killed they know it was for the greater good of The United States. Keep up the good work. HOOYA
Posted by: SSG Evan Stevens at December 11, 2005 06:40 PM (xZKhP)
215
Evan,
Normally I would agree with you. Please scroll back up and look at my comments on revenge and the indirect/direct endorsement of Islamic Fundamentalism of the US government.
I know for a fact that America's soldiers believe they are over in Iraq and they believe they are doing good and I think they are. But the reality is the Neocon fuckers whom the military serves see Iraq as a new colony for subjegation and conquest and its oil fields for its own. The true God of our "selected" leaders is the almight dollar and those NWO fucks will eventually reap what they have sewn. What is tragic here is the horrible misuse of the US military. I do not approve of this "war on terror" or this illegal invasion and conquest of Iraq.
In 5 years, the Iraqis will not be a free people, they will be victims of the largest theocracy the modern world has ever known. The US has liberated no one and is just a tool of the new Shiite masters that will slaughter the Sunnis who used to run Iraq under Saddam.
Scott
Posted by: Scott at December 12, 2005 08:42 AM (fnsQZ)
216
I don't agree totaly with you Scott. Yes there is a-lot of polotics involved with the war. Sadam had to go. The tangos in Afghanastan had to find a new home after we liberated the rest of the country. There was no oil involved there. The NWO is actually against the operation in Iraq. The NWO also wants to take your guns.
About the insurgency:
After WW2 there was a Nazi insersion. Hitler ordered the SS to fight a gurella war and they did for about 6 months. The differance was the Allies shot the insurgents on sight if they were caught in the act of sabotage or other gurella operations. Maybee if we enployed htisa tatic we would stop the insurgency cold. I know this cannot be done because of all of the bleeding hearts at home. But according to the Geniva convention this would be totaly legal.
I do belive in the mission. I have seen a totaly differant country in the last 2 years. I feel instead of paying for te war with tax payer dollars we should use the Iraqui oil to finance the rebuilding. These people have the right to life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness just like we do.
I respect your feelings on this issue, but I will just have to agree to dissagree with you. Was it illegal for Clinton to bomb them in 98. He used the same intell as Bush for his decision. As much as I didn't like the Clinton administration I think the operation (desert fox) in 98 was just. Don't believe everything on the news, ask returning vets about the success in Iraq, and for that mater Afghanastan.
I do feel this should be winding down after the election, and the Iraquis will have to fight their own war. They are good on the platoon level, just lack leadership. Iran may have to be delt with next. The war on terror will be a long war, but it has been successful so far and will continue ro be. No one will ever know how many attacks we have prevented so far. Al queida is operating at about 20% strength.
I would rather fight them in Iraq than on the streets of New York. The war is keeping them busy in Iraq and the Mid East so they cannot pour recources into another attack on US soil. I suspect if we did not answer their sorry attack the way we did it would be one 9/11 after another. We can't let them go un punished the way Clinton did. Clinton was advised to break the back of international terrorism, but he or his wife did not heed the warning. He was too busy with his worthless war in Bosnia, and Kosovo. The signs of an attack on the US were out in the open after the Cole.
We must do all we can to prevent future attacks on the US. If that means going to war for the next 20 years so be it. De Oppresso Liber, (to free the oppressed)
Thank you for your thoughts. Please support your country and your military. I don't fight for the beurocrats I fight for my fellow americans and my fellow soldigers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I swore to uphold the constitution, to defend the weak, and to protect the USA. Please do not for one minute think this war is for oil, it is not. The oil is all the people of Iraq's. We have all of the oil in Alaska and off the Gulf coast we need for centuries. HOO YA
Posted by: evan at December 12, 2005 02:02 PM (coNMB)
217
Worthless war in Bosnia and Kosovo??? Watch your tongue!!!!
Posted by: Done my duty at December 12, 2005 08:37 PM (OpBQy)
218
Sorry about the worthless comment, I was just upset at the time. I was there too. What I should have said is I feel the war aginst terrorism is more important. The Serbs didn't attack us numerous times on our oun soil. I didn't meen to anger anyone. Capturing Malosivitch was important too. Clinton should have been fighting terrorism also. Clinton cut and ran there leaving the job for the less than desireable UN to finish. In Bosnia we did a hell of a job. HOO YA
Posted by: evan at December 12, 2005 09:53 PM (coNMB)
219
Evan,
You make a reference to Nazis conducting insurgent activites after WW2 and the response was to kill them. Isn't that what we are doing now.
As for Bosnia, please show me the web site or photos of the alledged mass graves of Muslims that were mass executed by Serbs (Christians). Now the Muslims had zero problem filling the ground full of dead Christians. But then again, we all now the result, a brand new pipeline built by Halliburton. The pipeline that Slovidan Milosevic refused to allow to be built. We should have been Milosevic's allies.
As for your position on oil in Iraq, let me ask you a question. In the country of Zimbabwe, the Marxist president Robert Mugabe has declared being white a crime and seeks to kill or run out every white man, woman, and child out of that country. Why hasn't the US military been deployed? Were are the international sanctions? Why isn't this even mentioned on the US news media?
Answer: they are not floating on oil. Once we have the theocracy installed in Iraq, oil extraction will be easy. Now I do believe the insurgency (which they have ever right in the world to do) will last another 15 to 20 years.
Oh yes, I said it, the insurgency is justified. If the roles were reversed and the Iraqis invaded the US, overthrew the government, could you honestly say you, as an military person, would not conduct terrorist/insurgency operations against them?
I fully understand and respect your position but the only way this insurgent war in Iraq will end is when Bush orders the military to kill every male over the age of 12 in Iraq. That is the only way it will stop. Period.
I think the Democrats see this as well, but are 1) in a position of severe minority which will get worse, and 2) too much infighting in the party at the leadership level. We could quite frankly be living in a single party state by 2010 if the Democrats cannot get their act together.
Posted by: Scott at December 13, 2005 08:57 AM (fnsQZ)
220
I am hearten to see that at least some Americans have opinions about our foreign policy that they don't gleem from Newsweek, Time, and CNN. Course most of you have had that forged in experience, which most Americans lack.
We do seem to be missing some points, but the fact is we don't know what the overall "end game" motivations are of the "Islamic Radicals" that are our "ememy du jour" because I don't think they know themselves (at least the Warsaw Pact was predictable). Do they want a United Islamic Empire extending from Indonesia to Algeria? Fine, take it. Then the West must quit buying their oil, quit selling them weapons, and basically treat them like the lessor animals they are, ala pre-1940s. The problem is that the Western Governments and businesses make too much money on the fucks, and isn't that what this war is all about (or any war). I lost my idealism a decade ago.
You want to win the insurgency in Iraq? Invade Iran and Syria in a world war. You wanna win in Afghanistan? Make it a parking lot, or bribe everyone you can. Either way it is going to be expen$ive.
Are we going to have another attack here, on US soil? Undoubtly. But this is nothing new. What is new is our increasingly restrictive reactions on our own populace. It like herding cattle-you scare them in the direction you want them to go. Terrorist motivations for an attack include creation of this restrictive environment in their target country. That is how terrorism works. If they wanted, why don't they attack high value infrastructure targets? Use WMDs? Because it is hard for one-logistically and operationally. And it causes a reciprocal response. The gloves will come off, and they know it.
One more thing, just as we are divided in our relatively intellegent and informed opinions, we still look at those who oppose us, lets call them terrorists-everybody else does, don't you think that all these terrorists have their own opinions, end goals, and ideologies? We can't treat them as a monolitic solid.
Posted by: Ferg at December 14, 2005 12:08 PM (9ZCOj)
221
Scott comparing an invasion of the US to make the terrorist agenda seam fair is stretching it don't you think?
If the U.S. had a prison for people who hate the current administration.
"Scott you still there...Did they get you yet?"
If the U.S. government used nerve gas on Salt Lake City because they're Mormons.
If the U.S. had to be stopped by the world court from bombing the fleeing Mormons.
If the U.S. then tried to shoot down the U.N. sponsored planes.
If the U.S. invaded then raped and pillaged Mexico.
If the U.S. established one state mandated religion.
If the U.S. had no free press.
If the U.S. finally had to be invaded to pull Bush down from his eighth term.
Would I fight if the U.S. were invadedÂ…YESÂ…..But if the U.S. treated its citizens as poorly as Iraq did NO
Scott I think you have a very simple view of the world and that you believe we are fighting George Washington over thereÂ… We are not!! Most if not all of the people we are currently fighting want nothing but power, glory, and could care less about the average Iraqi mom and pop.
Posted by: Marty at December 14, 2005 12:18 PM (0LFzx)
222
Marty,
"Would I fight if the U.S. were invadedÂ…YESÂ…..But if the U.S. treated its citizens as poorly as Iraq did NO"
Sounds like you are the one with the simplistic world view. We are slowing creeping towards police state everyday and the Iraqis are creeping towards a Shiite-dominated theocracy which will unify with Iran and proceed to wipe every Sunni from that region of the world. What pisses me off is every US soldier over there thinking they are fighting for this dated concept called "freedom" is unknownly helping this plan become a reality.
What vice-Emperor Cheney is saying about the 95% of the insurgency being a part of bin Laden's crew is a load. They are nearly 100% Iraqi Sunnis with the assistance of Syrian military advisors knowing if they fail every Sunni will die. They have choice but to fight. They are fighting for their existance. No one has the right to be genocided off of the planet.
What I worry about goes much worse and farther than than the war in Iraq. Now I do not think it will take the World vs USA to remove Bush and the Neocon crew, I believe that the Dems will eventually retake power. And when they do, they will not be repealing the Patriot Act. No sir. No sir.
The Democrats will instead use it to target their most hated enemy ever to exist in the United States, the Christians. 2006 will be a most critical year that can go one of two directions:
1) The Neocons/Republicans continue to win elections in 2006/2008 and the Democratic party eventually collapses. This likely could take a world war to unseat the Neocons from power.
2) The Democrats win major numbers of seats in the house and senate in 2006 and the prez in 2008. Christian persecution and genocide operations against them are started by the government shortly afterwards.
Power options suck for everyone involved. While ar the same time, these "visionaries" give themselves and their friends awards and billionaire-dollar taxpayer paid-for contracts for government services and police state infastructure building and support.
Posted by: Scott at December 15, 2005 12:54 PM (fnsQZ)
223
hey thats kind of a wild idea, dont you think scott? wow.
Posted by: chris at December 15, 2005 02:04 PM (L8r/r)
224
No, I do not think so. In fact, I am probably being more conservative on this matter than most people. I happen to believe in things like God, Christianity, and the second coming of Christ. Soon I will be hunted like an animal for believing in such things.
Posted by: Scott at December 16, 2005 08:01 AM (fnsQZ)
225
Scott I'll have to slowly back away as most books say it's not wise to challenge people who...
Well you all get the idea...
Have a great X-mas or instert holliday here.
Marty
Posted by: Marty at December 16, 2005 05:58 PM (0LFzx)
226
All I know is if one more person calls an AK round a .308, I'm gonna put my fist through the screen.
Posted by: scarecrow at December 17, 2005 11:04 AM (BT2ft)
227
Yeah scarecrow...dumbasses need to learn their weapons. I do not claim to be the expert on all that is guns, but I happen to know what an AK-47 fires.
Learn your guns dumbasses!
Posted by: Scott at December 19, 2005 09:15 AM (fnsQZ)
228
Marty,
Most people look at things in the next 5 minutes...I try to look years out, and the outlook for the world is crap on every level. Now thinking I am crazy or ignoring the problem does not make it go away.
The majority of Americans live in an oblivious state of existance and are more interested in what hollywood star screwed married who as of late. I'll bet most Americans could not even find Iraq on a map. The people engaged in this debate and the entire debate of US foriegn policy make up less that probably 5% of the entire US adult populations, the other 95% care less. I'll bet China or some other 3rd world dictatorship would love to get an apeathic, vegged out population like the US.
You "backing away" statement does not impress me and only show you are just one more person who dare not "go down that road". Some of us have too because the damn few of us there are know there is more than Bush, more than Iraq, more than the Empire of the United States is going on.
Posted by: Scott at December 19, 2005 03:17 PM (fnsQZ)
229
haha i agree scarecrow... there are 4 types (probably even more) of 7.62 ammo...there is the 7.62x25 tokarev (pistol round),7.62x39 russian, the 7.x51 NATO (.308 winchester), and the 7.62x54 romanian (dragonov ammo). Also the 7.62 NATO hits with about 3000J of energy versus 2000J on the 7.62 Russian...so if you wanna go by pure power the .308 winchester is significantly more powerful than an AK round.
Posted by: Weaver at December 20, 2005 09:06 PM (VjPHj)
230
also i want to add...the ultimate future assault weapon is a modular HK g36 type rifle chambered in .308...i wish they would make one lol
Posted by: Weaver at December 20, 2005 09:08 PM (VjPHj)
231
I suggest you learn more about your military weapons before you start critique them ( 1 its the M249 Saw not the 243 and its a piece of shit yeah its fun in a firefight if it works moron) ( 2 you could never even come remotly close to putting in a 7.62 round in a m-4 its 5.56 only) you really need to put more research in the weapons we use you POG LEG learn then teach.
Posted by: Matt at December 23, 2005 10:49 AM (1BiwQ)
232
wow!i cant beleive i just read through that entire load of crap!i actually went to this site thinking i would get some usefull info. i learned something though. for all you new people to the shooting world take 99.95% of what you have read and laugh,dont take any of this as gospel. 5.56 vs. 7.62 oh, god! if you can read through the bull some people in this site talk some very valid and factual info. all of you newbies take your guns out to the range and go shoot! anything is better than nothing!shoot what you have the money to buy.everything has it's good and bad points! just learn to shoot and shoot well! learn how to clean and repair you guns. just remember all of the weapons talked about on this site are capable of killing with ease and have proven themselves capable of doing so. also i have read some guys making claims of martial arts expertise. anyone who does study the arts knows that your martial srts are reflexes that come after alot of intense practise.anyone can site on this site and procaim they are what their not! i would enjoy actually seeing some of these hot heads put it up in the ring though ,hey tuff guys why dont you try it out in the UFC maybe then you would learn something.hawaiin knee crusher hmmmmmm! never learned that one! but as i am an instructor i am also a student.anyone who knows what they are going to do to someone before a fight even happens well just goes to show you there are alot of people that dont know about shit,guns or martial arts anyways i like as i always do probably have pissed someone off,but i really dont care
Posted by: sibak at December 27, 2005 03:49 PM (FPOuk)
233
hey ray get a load of these choads! im going to forward this site to some real martial artists. i see a few people on this site actually know something . thank god for our armed forces. you guys put it up!that comment was for our military brothers eand sisters who actually have served this great country.hey forward this to the "WOP"he'll have some fun with the boys . some of these guys are wearin' me out . have you been training ray? i heard you have mastered "the donkey punch" and "the dirty sanchez"some very leathal moves and should not be shown to anyone outside of our clandestine inner circle.i feel very displeased with the 10+ years of kajukenpo/hawaiian kenpo/jiu-jitsu training i have had and just feel like going to blockbuster and renting a billy blanks cardio kickboxing video.hey check out my boys at leewardkenpokarate.com my instructor is on that site oh yeah.see if you can show this to mike d at H+H he'll get a laugh. thank god someone on this site knows about guns.
Posted by: sibak at December 27, 2005 04:47 PM (FPOuk)
234
I have two questions once I explain something. I am going to Iraq in May 06 with the Army Reserves. Is there anyway to get or take a personal sidearm and be able to bring it home once the deplyment over? Secondly, is there anyway to bring home a weapon that one may buy overseas legally? Just curious about procedure, etc. Any help would be appreciated.
Posted by: Gamigon at December 28, 2005 01:06 PM (kNLS0)
235
i wanted to reply to some of the issues with jamming problems of certain weapons talked about. i was in nevada a few months ago at the mustang range mahine gun shoot. they where renting an ar type carbine that fired full auto,thompson smg,an uzi,a glock 18 9mm,and an ak variant in 7.62 with a huge muzzle brake on the end of it. i had to shoot all of them and it was worth the 100$ to fire a magazine out of each of them.i shot the ar and the ak last. well i was probably the 200th person that day at least to shoot those the line was so long to shoot em' there was no time to stop and clean any of these guns.well i have never seen an ar so dirty and coverd in dust i thought i was shooting my black powder .45 anyways , nevada is mostly desert the ar was so hot after every mag they where diping the barrel in a bucket of water so the thing wouldnt melt. as you all are aware with all of these guns shooting all day alot of dust was in the air just sticking to everything. now i know this was not iraq nor afganistan but this rifle a bushmaster did not stop all day it went down for a few minutes because of a quick cleaning job with some breakfree and it was back in the shoot. i was amazed how easily it handled and how accurate it was on full auto i am not ex military but i could handle it just fine.to make matters more intresting they where handing out that crappy wolf ammo and it still kept blazing. the ak i shot was very different i'm very biased about com bloc weapons but this rifle fired just as well in the same condititons.i was not able to control it as well due to the larger recoil,but it fired just the same,muzzle blast was attrocious.this proved some things i have read about and disproved others this does not make me an expert but i saw what i saw. i would feel comfortable with both my preference being with the AR,hands down!some other things i was witness too there was everytype of belt fed mahine gin you name there that day and some i didnt know exsisted. i have to tell you that of the many types of small arms that day a few really impressed me.all of the m-60's fired flawlessly as well as the older 1919 browning air and water cooled guns. there was plenty of AR's running around and the ones i did observe functioned perfectly.not a whole lot of ak's but they all shot just fine. funny how i read about ole ma duece being the go to weapon though, and i dont mean to br sacriligous,but i saw the owners ot these guns constantly breaking them down and hosing them down with wd-40 i use that stuff for door hinges but hey use what you got.by no means was that the only one there they all seemed to have the same problem crappy ammo!the mg-34 AND THE 42'S are in my opoinion should be left to the history books fuckin garbage all though these guns are 60 somthing years old i didnt see the BAR's having any trouble.the m249 saw was impressive for its mean rate of fire.i would wouldnt want to be down range from it .and the very last thing was that 7.62 mini gun when it did fire it was beautiful 200 round belts where fired faster than i could count but the thing fragmented before i could choke up the 175$ to shoot it.oh there was the jerk off with the bad attitude that had an m-14
oh my beloved ! that i finally got this asshole to shoot off after i bought him a box of ammo for! just to get this on video tape was the best money i've spent it went fast and flawlessly . this little man couldnt control it at all. i'm not saying i could but i would have loved to try.if any of you gun whores out there get a chance to go to this thing go!i beleive the mustang range is right outside of fernly nevada close to reno, they have the shoots 2 times a year and it's free to go and watch, but bring some money ang shoot!the last part was the night fire with tracers and incinderary rounds what a show, any red blooded american would love this. get a hold of the range and go its called the mustang range and they do rent full auto weapons if you reserve them ahead of time. then us who havnt served this great land can see what our heroes in the armed forces get to do for fun,being that no one is shooting back at you.
oh my beloved ! that i finally got this asshole to shoot off after i bought him a box of ammo for! just to get this on video tape was the best money i've spent it went fast and flawlessly . this little man couldnt control it at all. i'm not saying i could but i would have loved to try.if any of you gun whores out there get a chance to go to this thing go!i beleive the mustang range is right outside of fernly nevada close to reno, they have the shoots 2 times a year and it's free to go and watch, but bring some money ang shoot!the last part was the night fire with tracers and incinderary rounds what a show, any red blooded american would love this. get a hold of the range and go its called the mustang range and they do rent full auto weapons if you reserve them ahead of time. then us who havnt served this great land can see what our heroes in the armed forces get to do for fun,being that no one is shooting back at you.
Posted by: garand nut at December 28, 2005 01:36 PM (FPOuk)
236
gamigon, i have asked this question myself to freinds in the army deployed in iraq right now. i asked them because there was alot of talk about our weapons being "not enough power" and not "reliable". my question was just that! hell i was going to give my .45 to a friend to take with him. i got my first awnser " i wish i could" and the second one , hey man bring me back something besides yourself, the awnser was the same"i wish i could" so the awnsers i got was NO! and NO!they couldnt give me the exact reasons why , they just said it's about government issue and some crap about a law that was passed about you guys not being able to bring back war trophies.i know that there was a law passed i think by clinton that does not allow firearms to be brought into the U.S. that way. maybe the B.A.T.F. could help you out on being able to bring home a firearm, and maybe you should talk to whoever is in charge and ask that person about taking something with you. i just got my info from 2 guys it dosn't mean it cant be done.take care over there and thanks for having what it takes to put yourself in harms way some of us do appreciate that!
Posted by: sibak at December 28, 2005 02:14 PM (FPOuk)
237
Alright man, I stumbled onto this sight by accident, and I feel an obligation to make a few comments. First, I hear you sibak,learn to shoot and shoot as often as possible. There is a lot posted here that I find comical. 308 russian?, you must mean 7.62x54. People need to specify whether they are talking about 7.62x39 or this "308 russian". As far as the debate over AKs vs. ARs, the Isrealis figured this out a long time ago. Their solution came in the form of the Galil. I wish I had one, or two. One SAR and one ARM, .223 and .308 respectively. Another thing, there have been ARs made in 7.62x39. Once again people need to be specific. I've actually enjoyed reading some of this stuff. My cousin, and shooting partner, spends alot of his time in the net looking at posts like this and I never could get into it, I am afraid I might be caught..... Oh no. I personally like the AR line, have an AR-10, along with a USP in .45 and a sub-compact 1911 Kimber. Big fan of the .45. Look forward to reading any new posts. Later, Nick
Posted by: Nick at December 29, 2005 06:13 AM (+XLxh)
238
Looks like I skipped the last little part there. Add this, 7.62x33 Kruz.
Posted by: Nick at December 29, 2005 06:25 AM (+XLxh)
239
hey nick i think your getting your ammo mixed up...7.62x39 has never been used in american made weapon (assuming thats what you meant by "AR's")... 7.62x39 = 7.62 russian (AK-47 round), your thinking of 7.62x51 NATO = .308win which is fired out of the m-14 and an AR variant known as an AR-10...as well as many many other weapons (i dont think the AR-10 was ever used by our military though). Also 7.62x54 is romanian/russian and fired from dragonov/svd sniper rifles.
Posted by: Weaver at December 30, 2005 08:10 PM (VjPHj)
240
Olympic arms made uppers for the AR family in 7.62x39, but you had to use special magazines. Post this into your browser, www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/magazines/colt762.html I know what the 7.62x54 is, I have shot a dragonov, the 7.62x54 is a rimmed cartridge. Like I said, I have an AR-10. That was the original AR(not the one I own, but the titanium prototype that was tested in the 50s along with the Cetme and M-14)and the charging handle was in the carrying handle. The AR was a .308 before it was a .223. I think the military does use the AR-10T, which is chambered for the .300wsm. Look forward to hearing back from you weaver.
Posted by: Nick at December 31, 2005 11:18 AM (+XLxh)
241
I definitely agree that the AR design was originally meant to fire .308. Also ive never seen that upper before but it seems pretty cool. I guess i thought
you meant that there were AR's designed to fire 7.62x39 from the very beginning...i wasnt thinking of conversion kits. LOL anyway its good to see at least somone else on here knows WTF they are talking about.
Posted by: Weaver at December 31, 2005 03:55 PM (VjPHj)
242
The US and most of the west still prefers the "tight tolerances and inexpensive" round (5.56) proposed by the "Whiz Kids" of the 60's.
Unfortunately, in the real world...then and now, a big penetrating projectile(.308 or 7.62x39mm round) and "loose" tolerances are the best. Sand, dirt, mud, stupid operators, won't foil the operation of any AK weapon systems.
On the other hand, a little sand, water, mud, screws "all" of the western weapons.
Afetr 40 years you'd think the west would "get it". Rounds down range are what matters in the end.
Posted by: LoPull at December 31, 2005 06:47 PM (3usbu)
243
get a gun guide.
am a hardcore "survivalist nut", have abused my ar-15 for years, still good. some bad mags, extractor failed once...replaced. would like to see an ar45 that fed reliably for cqb, would be a useful backup. too much b.s. on this site between posters.
Posted by: brain at December 31, 2005 07:50 PM (vsV0r)
244
LoPull i disagree that all western weapons suck...in fact the AK is one of the first and only eastern weapons that is even worth a damn. The M-14 is almost the perfect rifle and it was made here in the USA. Also take a look at our handgun tech...the glock is a fucking piece of art lets see a eastern country match it in design.
Posted by: Weaver at December 31, 2005 08:53 PM (VjPHj)
245
nick,weaver, i think lopull is a little out of touch, no offense lopull im mean that with respect, unless i too read your post as the rest of us have, i think you just said western weapons suck! well i can say this HOW MANY MATCHES HAVE EASTERN MADE WEAPONS WON! i'll start with that. even though your point was along the lines of "reliability" first i'll start with the m1 carbines,m1 garands,the BAR,and other superb small arms of WW2. having 2 grandfathers that served, one being in the marines and the other in the army that i have asked a million times about their experience with the weapons they used and i get the same awnsers " im here because my garand never let let me down" "my old thompson cut that nip in half" " i loved those m1 carbines they always fired when you needed them too" as i also can read history books the fighting on the islands was some of the worst conditions ever! well then there is my grandpa that fought in europe with those crappy western guns in the snow and rain and mud and so on and seems like our guys killed alot of sqaure heads with those pieces of doo-doo well,not saying that they never had any problems but they didn't tell me about any at all.next, since the m-14 was the decendant of the garand which still is regarded as the probably the best battle rifle of all time,the m-14 cured what to some people thought were problems with the m-1,capacity, the gas system and shortening the op rod.again creating another superb battle rifle.remember that the m-14 served extremely well in viet nam! well again another crappy western gun.then eugene stoner also a WW2 combat marine veteran sought to invent a weapon to compete with the m-14, this is where nick has done his homework the ar-10 in 7.62mm x 51.as the army rejected the design because our tooling was already set up at springfeild armory to produce the m-14 we hung on to it.well now comes the armalite ar-15 design but chambered in in the modified .222 cartridge the new .223 designated 5.56mm because of higher pressures this round creats due to thicker case walls.again this crappy western weapon was one of the most well thought out and advanced designs ever put in too a weapon system. eugene stoner used what many say to be a flaw in this design was the direct gas system. well there are some benefits to this,less moving parts in the rifle which improves accuracy. no gas piston to become fouled up cause corrosion. oh yeah gas pistons can and do break boys. i think it's just as easy to open up an AR and pull out the bolt carrier clean it off, brush out the chamber and the inside of the upper and go. ever try to replace an extractor or a firing pin in a hurry on a AK? or replace the gas piston head if it broke. say it can't happen well i'm sure that i've never heard our AK totin' diaper heads comlain about it because our guys are too busy killing them with our crappy western weapons.and,if the 5.56mm is so crappy of a round why are all of our police agencies,SWAT teams uhh BATF uhh FBI ummm and every other government agency mostly armed with that piece of crap and it's feeble cartridge,because THEY ARE ALLOWED TO USE EXPANDING AMMO!which puts that rifle back in the ass kicking game.now i have to agree with weaver that the AK for a long time has been the only assault rifle worth a damn,i have respect for any rifle that can drop me like a bad habbit ,but i don't have to like it.so im still wondering if we have a bunch of crappy weapons why are we all still here i think our guys are fighting with the best weapons out there, of course im not in combat and i do not have first hand experience about desert environments and all that but just because someone says a certain gun lacks punch or jams up dosn't mean it's allways the weapons! poor shot placement under stress when these towl heads are shooting at them or they can't clean their weapon consistently DOSN'T MEAN THAT OUR WEAPONS ARE CRAPPY!and also sometimes it dosn't matter what you hit someone with humans are remarkably tuff sometimes,by the way if the 7.62x39 is so much better than why do alot more of our guys come home after being hit.i don't know anything will work if you have what it takes to use it when you have to. so anyways lopull hope you don't think i was beatin' up on ya just trying to have some fun.
,
Posted by: sibak at December 31, 2005 11:02 PM (FPOuk)
246
Hey, sibak or weaver, either of you shoot IPSC or IDPA? If so, what division?
Posted by: Nick at January 01, 2006 12:38 AM (+XLxh)
247
nah...though ive allways wanted to get into comps
Posted by: Weaver at January 01, 2006 09:19 PM (VjPHj)
Posted by: yeimt at January 05, 2006 09:08 PM (qQS/K)
249
Personal sidearms can be taken over but cannot be brought back home and must be left. Also personal ammo can be taken over. I know of a lot of sidearms that went over and of some goldmedal match 308 ammo taken over by some snippers althought I thought they were army I think.
Posted by: bigboydave at January 08, 2006 10:59 PM (DTWVE)
250
First, the best weapon is the one that you have logistic support for PERIOD.
M-14, At 200+ lb, I am just not comfortable using it except as a simi-auto.
M-16 A1, I was in Viet Nam. No it wasn't that great at first. But it was useable in full auto. Yes the amo was a major problim.
M-16 A2, Decent weapon.
AK series, Exactly what you would expect if you had a shot to hell Russian Master Sergeant design a "perfect weapon" during and just after WWII.
Posted by: Retired SSG at January 09, 2006 05:00 PM (hNv1X)
251
Specifically to Steve's comment that the bible states the antichrist's armies will kill in the name of God:
What do you make of the religious fanatics who are strapping themselves with nails and shrapnel all to blow themselves to kingdom come? They are not right. They are the ones making God their solid agenda when he clearly doesn't want people exploding themselves.
We are to be God's temple. Killing ourselves is destroying God's temple.
The US is not claiming religious high-ground over the insane-gency. They are operating from logistical procedure wherein you protect yourself from threats current and future.
Furthurmore, the insurgency and Terrorist networking worldwide uses God's name in vain to commit their lives to pointless death. The leaders of terrorist groups are murdering their followers, just like the suicide cults of the past.
The downfall of this war would be to hate the enemy soldier so blindly that no blame ever reaches to those responsible for producing such worldwide pestilence. The purpose of fighting IS NOT CONTAINMENT, but rather the END of dangerous murderers. Fight the footsoldiers in order to end the evil regime, not to just fight the damn footsoldiers.
Even many insurgent recruits have been heard questioning the viability of the "suicide" mission, yet these piece of garbage recruiters are telling young men and women to sacrifice their lives. Insurgent leaders won't go blow themselves up, but would readily offer a 20 year old boy to slaughter. HOW HOLY IS THAT. The US military does not operate under the same principles. Our military accepts those who wish to fight, none are drafted.
I believe in the US, our leader, and my creator God Almighty. I also own an AK-m, a Springfield 1911, and a large Samurai sword and will own my enemies if they threaten the life of my loved ones, or the society in which we exist.
Stop doubting what we are doing. We are doing what MUST be done, and the thousands upon thousands of soldiers standing guard deserve our belief.
- Citizen Standing Firm
Posted by: Mention One Thing at January 12, 2006 02:58 PM (bo2ht)
Posted by: ahspm at January 12, 2006 09:32 PM (qQS/K)
253
I own both a ak-47 and a civilian ar-15. I like them both ,but we had the same problems during world war two and korea with the m-1 carbine. Meaning that the are goverment can't get it right then, what gives you the idea that their going to change form a m-16/m-4 to a ak-47 variant. I also believe that it doesn't matter the size of the caliber if you shoot the stupid bastard in his head. So maybe if we teach soldiers the good ol one shot one kill method then will not have as many problems with the firearms that goverment money crunchers have decided on. One last note the 45 caliber should of never been replaced by the the 9mm.
Posted by: Erik at January 15, 2006 11:16 PM (/Wetb)
254
hey spankers i decided i would come back to this site for one reason i spent all day shooting my m1a and me new colt ar15 a2 lightweight. some of you just probably rolled your eyes , i dont really GAF!my limp wristed buddy ray JR came from california to help me with work and we went shooting! surprised ?that probably more than some of you on this site have done all year . we found some 350 chevy heads laying there and blasted them with 5.56 and 7.62 . well the impotent weak little varmint round had no problem busting its way into those heads . thats with ss109 i got a while back the 7.62 just sent pieces flying . dont worry none fellas i was shooting at chevrolet parts at a good distance under very good cover my dodge! he he
Posted by: sibak at January 15, 2006 11:34 PM (FPOuk)
255
erik the m1 carbine was intended to replace the holy .45, the carbine ballistically outperforms the .45 dramatically even out of the thompson sunny boy !the problems with the .30 carbine round was FMJ's and even that small pistol round when fired on full auto was not always easy to control anyone who thinks that someone could absorb 25 rounds of .30 carbine to the chest and still kept comming at you well i think its a myth born from bad shooting myself.
Posted by: sibak at January 15, 2006 11:46 PM (FPOuk)
256
Youre all wrong the greatest weapon and round to have in combat is the Lorcin .380 loaded with 90 grain ball ammo.
Posted by: The Truth at January 24, 2006 01:04 AM (kdcCc)
257
I was in the Army over in the middle east and hated the M-16. It is JUNK. It is killing our soldiers. It jams when you need it and can't withstand sand. Too much to maintain, and collects carbon too much. I got ahold of an AK47 in semi-auto and was able to resupply my ammo easily. I gave my 22 varmit ammo to my squad. I am now out and have sold all my traditional lever, bolt, weapons and bought some excelent AK47s and 45Colt pistol, and one pump mossberg 590 12 gauge with a sidefolder.
Posted by: AK JAY at January 31, 2006 03:03 PM (IKfGT)
258
ak jay the m16 is not killing our soldiers enemy fire is,and for you maybe learning some basic cleaning skills would solve your issues.your entitled to your opinion. an ak-47 in semi auto in the middle east i wasn't aware that there was any type of full auto restrictions there.well i guess if you actually want too hit something with one shot throw away your m-16 the spray n' pray method still lives on.i know the ak's have some decent accuracy and all and they are reliable but that varmint round as you call it is very capable of inflicting severe damage and death. to say they are junk well maybe you should have spent more time shooting than flipping burgers in the mess hall.like fred says are you a rifleman or are you a cook? and as "the truth" says about the lorcin 380 there is one better the intratec tec -9 with 9mm ball ammo top that baby!
Posted by: sibak at February 01, 2006 01:10 PM (FPOuk)
259
sibak- when a soldiers weapon jams in a firefight he is no longer in the fight but taking cover and trying to fix the malfunction. The soldier goes from an asset to the squad to a liability. This leads to soldiers dying from having an unreliable weapon. I know this from personal experience 11B - Infantryman grunt not your whopperflopper. The AK I found was full or semi auto and was very used but functioned flawlessly. I was very confident in with the AK 47 and truely believe I save my life with it more than once and can honestly say I would be dead or wounded if I would have been using my M 16. The AK 47 is very easy to clean and maintain and accurate to 400 yards with open sights. I've heard that over 50 million AK 47s or copies have been produced and over billions of rounds have been fired. It's the aimed shot that mostly kills not your 'spray and pray' cover fire. I passed it on to my platoon leader when I ETSd. Out of the thousands of rounds I fired it only jamed once and this was because the primer fell out as the round was being cycled. In my opinion the M-16 is junk worthy of only scrap. I am not going to respond to any more criticism.
Posted by: AK JAY at February 01, 2006 09:16 PM (IKfGT)
260
ak jay well i have just read your last post and i want to respond. you say you have so called "been" in the military and you cant take a little criticism.well, how in the hell did you possibly make it through a fire fight? us as u.s. soldiers are taught in basic to at least take a little criticism without taking offense.and as i have qaulified with the m-16 in excess of 400m and beyond, i have never heard that any of our middle eastern enemie's had to endure training of that expertise with an ak. open sights at 400 yards huh? did you train carlos hathcock? seems to me your probably one of those guys who sits around in his panties playing army when our soldiers are out there defending this nation with thier guts. and too say that our primary small arm is a piece of junk when it has proven itself all over the world in every u.s. conflict since vietnam well that just goes to show the next person to read this crap ak jay really belongs where he is needed most "would you like to supersize that order" sibak, at least for a guy who hasn't been in the military you have what this guy lacks common sense and guts.
Posted by: joey d wop at February 03, 2006 01:37 AM (I9nWZ)
261
United States has a tradition of waiting and seeing when it comes to weapons evaluations..Just look at the Patton tanks with their exposed fuel tanks..the aluminum Bradleys..the HUMVEEs that lack armor..the shortage of body armor...and yes the M-16. Never before have we seen a better educated Armed Forces..these soldiers know when their weapons suck..thats why all the private security contractors are NOT using M-16s. Even the Secret Service wont use them.
Posted by: The Truth at February 06, 2006 08:02 AM (kdcCc)
262
Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.
How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.
Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?
CPL. K
Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:53 AM (L8r/r)
263
Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.
How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.
Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?
and by the way, WTF are you armchair commandos thinking anyway??! You are rooting for a weapon that has killed and wounded THOUSANDS of American Soldiers, yeah its a neat little weapon that works all the damn time so idiots can use it, but c'mon, take some damn pride. If any of you little wannabees came to my fire team, id break you off.
CPL. K
Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:56 AM (L8r/r)
264
Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.
How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.
Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?
and by the way, WTF are you armchair commandos thinking anyway??! You are rooting for a weapon that has killed and wounded THOUSANDS of American Soldiers, yeah its a neat little weapon that works all the damn time so idiots can use it, but c'mon, take some damn pride. If any of you little wannabees came to my fire team, id break you off.
CPL. K
Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:56 AM (L8r/r)
265
hey sorry about 3 reposts in a row, im a fuckstick LOL
Posted by: cpl. k at February 07, 2006 09:58 AM (L8r/r)
266
cpl. k yeah maybe iam something like a armchair jerkoff and all. but, dis guy over here is pissin' in my cornflakes with this m-16 is junk booshit! you don't have to be in the military to figure out that ak's are prone to bad accuracy, and besides my ar's will never see the middle east so im not worried about these jamming issues i here about. what is kinda funny is that i only here about it on the net. i live not too far from ft. lewis in wa. and i actually do run into these guys who have just came back from the shit hole over there and not one of these guys says any of this girly whining crap about jamming and ammo performance.im sorry ak jay if i butt hurt ya. but, dont come on to a place like this and start barkin' about our weapons some people love this country and apple pie and the m-16 is apple pie.
Posted by: sibak at February 07, 2006 12:26 PM (FPOuk)
267
I'm sure 500 yd accuracy serves you well when clearing rooms 10x10...I'd choose reliability anyday over accuracy...the Ford is apple too, but even theyre going out of business...its a new millenium...the United States does not make the best of everything...Even our closest allies wont use the M-16 garbage...and our former Cold War allies immediately turned to alternative weapons once the US stopped funding them..because of yep..u guessed reliability and cost...If you were stuck in the mud would you rather have a fast sexy sportscar with its high tolerances or a rugged old 4x4 that you knew would get you out of trouble...the M-16 sucks period...end of discussion...and you guys didnt even address the failures of other US arms ventures...hell the Osprey was grounded after it killed dozens of Marines but theyre still pouring millions into the project. You would think a Frenchman designed the M-16, but even they wont touch it!!!
Posted by: The Truth at February 07, 2006 11:08 PM (kdcCc)
268
And another thing!...if it wasnt for all the girly whiners...the US Army would still be using lever action repeating rifles...but at least they would be more reliable than the M-16!!! By the way apple pie is an Old English invention.
Posted by: The Truth at February 07, 2006 11:14 PM (kdcCc)
269
wow "the truth" i almost stand corrected! the u.s. has a talent of improving on ideas that where mostly failures from other inventors from different countries and creating something that works. yes we have had failures that have costed human life but this country has always tried to improve on the basic principles of eqaulity for all. by the way ford is doing badly because of piss poor management! not because of bad cars i am a big dodge fan but ford makes some good cars and trucks you must be refering to GMC, closing 6 plants dosn't mean it's time to throw in the towel.so all of our allies threw away the m-16 huh? that might be news to canada who uses them. oh and isreal who uses them to. i know they use the galil in 5.56mm but since have gone back to the m-16 as they cannot produce the galils cost effectively. i dont see them or here them bitching and moaning about the jamming and poor ballistics and as a matter of fact they have invented new assault rifles around the 5.56mm and even the old .30 carbine round.i know the galil is an improved AK, so why ?did they go back to the m-16. they depend on their weapons every day and live in the harshest environments on this planet! huh? they must be stupid!they have depended on U.S. weapons and alot others for a long time.oh if you are up for the challenge do some homework on that! it was the AK-47 who the golani brigade called it"the lion of the desert" and the inventor of the UZI uziel gal used a terminally superior cartdrige the 5.56mm in the galil. the isreali's who know nothing of combat have stated time and time again the galil offers very little the m-16 has not provided.and in a 10x10 room i would take the easy and fast change of magazines any day of an m-16 over trying to rock those finicky no bolt hold open,clunky, inaccurate, sheet metal dinosaurs! no problem. no one seems to mention that to change an ak magazine in a stressful situation takes some doing, i wonder how many bad guys where killed by our side because it took them those extra seconds to reload in the time of need.extra seconds boys thats what counts . maybe some highly trained russian special forces can do it fast.but,the average soldiers are going to be able to recharge and keep shootin faster.and another thing the french have been in the forefront along time with small arms development they just drop them when it comes time to use them. the FAMAS is a superb weapon but how has it proven itself in combat the french compain about being in iraq!i wonder if they've enen fired them.but even they use the 5.56mm the m-16 isn't perfect but it works well and none of you have said anything worth while to prove me wrong! the same old shit. in the small arms NATO trials guess what beat out all of your GALIL'S,AK'S,FAMAS'S,HK'S,AUG'S and others for reliability,accuracy and ergonomics was the m-16 go ahead and do your homework on that and then come back with the facts, and apple pie wasn't invented here i didn't say that we just improved it.
Posted by: sibak at February 08, 2006 03:39 PM (FPOuk)
270
I never said anything about the 5.56 round..just the garbage M-16...the only reason Israelis dont complain is because other former NATO countries dropped them at bargain basement prices. Israel uses them in their reserves which by the way are all citizens capable of bearing arms...their conscript army has no say in these matters anyway. The fact that Canada uses them does not support your claims either...Canada hasnt had a military victory in...um...Canada hasnt had a military victory! and how exactly do you improve upon apple pie?..by adding cinnamon?
Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 12:01 AM (kdcCc)
271
ry these on for size www.manningaffordability.com/ s&tweb/PUBS/M16Rifle/M16_Rifle.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-iraq.htm
I've got oh maybe 20 more like sites
Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 12:27 AM (kdcCc)
272
ha ha !yeah i forgot to mention that the british SAS use them exclusively over their own L-85's,the philipin government uses them,mexico,a number of countries in latin america,some south african countries use them !i could go on and on and on.and of all the weapons israel could of gotten at rock bottom prices why pay when they seized thousands of those turds in the six day war with egypt and iran.i know the m-16 is not as forgiving in the sand as the AK but to call it junk when it has everything else going for it is just stupid.and by the way im no big fan of canada but they helped us win decisive battles in WWII just sit down with a history book and actually read it!dont just look at the pictures!and i dont think the ak is junk it's not for me comrad! well that is why some pump gas for a living it's easy , not complicated , dosn't require much thought other than to not light a cigarette while doing it.i just like to be smarter than my rifle then i know it wont let me down!so go play johnny jihad with your toys and when your need your boomstick you should be able to figure out what end the bullet comes out of so you wont hurt the rest of us ok!by the way conscript i would use a AK of course too fight my way to my AR! cinnamon on apple pie ! man i waited all day for that dumb ass reply ! well stupid is as stupid does forrest!
ha ha !yeah i forgot to mention that the british SAS use them exclusively over their own L-85's,the philipin government uses them,mexico,a number of countries in latin america,some south african countries use them !i could go on and on and on.and of all the weapons israel could of gotten at rock bottom prices why pay when they seized thousands of those turds in the six day war with egypt and iran.i know the m-16 is not as forgiving in the sand as the AK but to call it junk when it has everything else going for it is just stupid.and by the way im no big fan of canada but they helped us win decisive battles in WWII just sit down with a history book and actually read it!dont just look at the pictures!and i dont think the ak is junk it's not for me comrad! well that is why some pump gas for a living it's easy , not complicated , dosn't require much thought other than to not light a cigarette while doing it.i just like to be smarter than my rifle then i know it wont let me down!so go play johnny jihad with your toys and when your need your boomstick you should be able to figure out what end the bullet comes out of so you wont hurt the rest of us ok!by the way conscript i would use a AK of course too fight my way to my AR! cinnamon on apple pie ! man i waited all day for that dumb ass reply ! well stupid is as stupid does forrest!
Posted by: sibak at February 09, 2006 08:50 PM (FPOuk)
273
So you finally resort to personal insults..I never personally insulted you..just pointed out the fallacies of your argument..it will be obvious to anyone who reads these posts that I am superior in both intellect and articulation. You never produced a single scientific resource to back up your absurd claims. I am finished with you and the inferior aptitude you demonstrated during the discourse of our little debate..although diatribe would be more appropriate since you dont respond to challenges posed to you.
Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 11:24 PM (kdcCc)
274
By the way..you spelled these words incorrectly..[philipin..comrad...dosn't]..so maybe you should reconsider your statement of "i just like to be smarter than my rifle then i know it wont let me down!"
Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 11:35 PM (kdcCc)
275
c'mon man i was just pokin' fun at ya!nothing personel i mean that!yeah and maybe i should read through my posts and check for type o's but dude your the only guy that has come back to beat up on me. IM SORRY !i didn't think it sounded that bad when i wrote it! but i had tried to use as many facts and not just here say that i could.i was waiting for some other response than "it's junk" "worthy of the scrap heap" i responded to your claims one by one in defense of the m-16 and included factual info not just a bunch of ranting to back it up!i did do some research on this because i like this rifle alot, and having freinds and family in afganistan and iraq as we speak some how i feel some loyalty to the weapons they carry that protects our freedoms,along with the people who carry it!so yeah my temper gets a little hot when i here this shit! sometimes it's not always the scientific response. it's one from the old saying" DON'T TREAD ON ME" damn near everytime i see the ak it's in the hands of these bastards cutting heads off of people with their hands tied behind them screaming for their life!fuck that i know it's not the rifle it's the image. that weapon in the hands of these fuckers. you all need to go check out michael savage's website @ KSFO.com and watch all of the neat little beheading videos with the brave terrorists holding up their ak's.so anyways "the truth" don't be like AK JAY and cower down stand up to me !i don't want to fight you dude ! just want to give you a good beatin' because it's fun!nobody on this website could piss me off say whatcha will and stick by it.so i can debate someone with a sack! good too go now? by the way spelling is not my gift,math is! how about this, give me? X(3)/[4005] =the cube root of 4005 thats an easy one!
Posted by: sibak at February 10, 2006 11:41 AM (FPOuk)
276
The Truth, i beg to differ. Are you in the military? i am kind of curious. Youre in slight need of correction here my friend. Isreal, one of our closest allys issued their soldiers M16s. They have been useing them for years and years (along with the Galil). This weapson system has been the primary infantry rifle of the united states military since 1967, is in use by 15 NATO countries, and has been the most produced firearm in its caliber. Look it up hotshot.
Ive cleared many rooms with the M16A4, with bulky IBA and tons of gear strapped to it. There are easy ways to get around it, and let me tell you, clearing a 10x10 room doesent require a whole lot of poop and shoot- just look over the front site post and shoot the bastard, you can even crook the rifle under your shoulder a bit if you want. The M4 is much better, but lacks the long range knockdown power, i wouldent expect to knock a head off on the first couple rounds past 250 with an M4- you might have to hit him a couple of times.
Some of my buddies over at AMU that tweak standard M16A4's for Squad Designated Marksman rifle use will tell you that the need for 500+ meter engagments are neccecary, especially in afganistan- otherwise we wouldent be going to so much trouble to make this shit. Ive seen this stuff firsthand bucko. Lets see an AK-47 or 74 do that kind of work. Yeah mabye with 5 guys dumping single shot after shot. Your facts are askew (spelling) and you should probably ask someone who knows, rather than going to some lame gun site or random gun-range banter. There will never be a perfect rifle, and you can always have range and close proximity perfection, but the M4/M16 is a good balance, if somewhat sensitive to dust and corrosion. Read my above post to get a better idea of "the truth". I have worked with dozens of NCO's and soldiers who all share the same general opinion. We like our rifles, we hate cleaning them, but if you clean them like your supposed to, they work. Got two simple words for you- Weapons... Maintainance.
Go play counter-strike, armchair.
CPL K.
Posted by: Cpl. K at February 10, 2006 02:12 PM (L8r/r)
277
Another illiterate wannabe soldier..so youre a cook in the Army..big deal..I'm not impressed..why should I trust the opinion of a moron who spells these words wrong[Isreal..useing..weapson..doesent...wouldent...engagments..neccecary..afganistan..mabye..maintainance]...I've got two simple words for you... Webster's Dictionary! What a bunch of morons..no wonder you guys still havent taken control of Iraq?!
Posted by: The Truth at February 10, 2006 05:51 PM (kdcCc)
278
Oh yeah..you spelled [allys] wrong too!..Geez!..think God we arent fighting a technologically equitable enemy!
Posted by: The Truth at February 10, 2006 05:57 PM (kdcCc)
279
Now listen here you coward son of a bitch, i dont see you out here doing these things, youre a fat couch potato that feeds off the deeds of others. You think because im too busy to perfect my words on this lame little blog site, that my deeds or the actions of MY brothers in arms are ignobal? Fuck you yellow- come to benning, i EMPLORE you. Come educate yourself, bottom feeder. Come say what you said to me, to any one of MY soldiers. Youre sound like a recreant, a second-rate, a sorry sack, a bench warmer who believes everything he hears from video games, blog sites, and TV. I see your kind all over. Who thinks the Army is just about guns and killing, and that you can identify with us by knowing all this mis information you call knowledge. Im done talking with you, say what you like.
grow some sac, poser.
Corporal K.
Posted by: CPL K. at February 11, 2006 08:54 AM (L8r/r)
280
I think the truth needs to STFU, he seems to be kind of a homo. Anyone second me? I wish someone could steer the discussion back toward weapons, or ammo, or well... anything but this petty bullshit. Hey truth, you got any military experience? If not, why? If so, where, when and what service. Hope this post is grammatically correct enough for you, homo.
Posted by: Nick at February 11, 2006 06:44 PM (x1LgB)
281
CPL K. i have too say i'm laughing off my fucking chair right now! i actually felt somewhat bad for mouthing off to this guy "the truth" last time. he points out that he has givin me scientific analysis that the m-16 is a is an inferior weapon,or in his words "a peice of junk worthy of the scrap heap" "it's junk" that was his interpritation of a good solid arguement backed up alot of facts found through intense research.well, little man !you have not only proved that your a first class shit head! you have proved that "some people are simply alive because it's illegal too kill them"that is not a threat by anymeans. i just think maybe mommy and daddy should turn up the parental controls on their computer,before we hear another news bulletin that another stupid kid was missing because he went to play with someone he met on the net.at least we know you can spell though, that will help you when you go to a job interview at CNN just as the lies and disinformation you have spouted off here, you can go global with your hatred for this country and its military. don't worry nobody wants too hurt you, we just want you too keep taking your pills, they will make you feel better!before you bad mouth anything from now on maybe you should actually know what your talking about.but what should we expect from from a little creep like you.how do your panties stay up anyways?so if you have not already rolled your eyes and punched your pillow yet i will give you some facts. please feel free to critique my spelling. fact 1: the AK-47 is prone too malfunction in certain makes due too 1mm receiver thickness.lack of lubrication "you should be familiar with this if you have ever been anywhere near a vagina"will cause bending and flexing in the length of the receiver thus causing jamming,gas piston binding and or breakage. sand,dust,and carbon fouling can also add too this problem causing also bolt fatigue and breakage.fact 2:the AK-47 has a notorious problem even with a slower cyclic rate that of the m-16 and that is barrel warp. even though a weapon can be fired with a substantially warped barrel this decreases accuracy and dependability exponentially of the weapon.AK-47's are prone too overheating and parts breakage stupid!so my next question to you"the truth" is how long did you pack one around in the desert before you learned that? uhhh my guess is never.how many times did you feild strip an AK in 120 degree heat and see the rust and dust seize the bolt closed that you needed a sledgehammer too open it up?well son, M-16's are for the mostpart impervious too the elements they don't rust,there is no wood too heat up and catch on fire,their aluminum receivers are lighter and stronger than an AK's and their steel is that of an extemely higher qaulity than that of an AK.just read the U.S. military specifications on small arm manufacturing reqiurements.fuck i said eveything as scientific,factual and unbiased as i could have.iv'e done some of the work for you,so if you dont respond too my post i understand,if i have offended you again i don't care,maybe mom and dad will let you stay up past bed time too let you retort and please don't come back with some lame and not thought out reply like "i will not respond to your insults" blah sniff dribble, it's pretty boring!101st screaming eagles baby!
Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:06 PM (FPOuk)
282
hey nick,i second that i have been reading through the posts by him and i see that maybe "the truth" and "ak jay" might be the same lump of shit! or at least each others pet boys!i mean dude do you think their in the powder room holding each others pee-pee's after trying to get someone old enough to get them a spank mag or what.yep homo i'm sure anyone who has the time to sit and correct others on spelling well you know man! i don't have to say it.
Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:35 PM (FPOuk)
283
oh yeah before i got so soft apologizing to "the truth" i wanted to ask you about your superior apptitude for opposing dialect and discourse through an opposing view that i cannot substantially refut my thesis on the topic which we are engaged in debate.i however in my last posting on the subject of poor performance of the M-16 have refuded and provided substantial evidence that the tpoic of our dialogue has been thoroghly represented and is comprised of factual information disconcerning your opposing view and have refuded and disproved your thesis and analysis of our debate.
Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:52 PM (FPOuk)
284
Besides the continued spelling errors I see some of you got your friends or neighbors to write on your behalf..did you contact your old special ed teachers to help you? Again you ape-like idiots feed on hate and anger at your lack of intelligence...I repeat all I said was that the M-16 is junk..I didnt say I hate America, watch CNN, accuse you of being homosexuals, or say I hate the military. These are all your words not mine..I do now see how easy it is to manipulate the small minds of puny men like yourselves. Just post your REAL address online here and maybe I'll show up maybe I won't..depends on what's the weather if I'll drive down or not. The next move is yours! I'm pretty sure I can beat anyone of you up..I'm not a violent person though, but judging from your gross lack of intellect I'm confident I could!
Posted by: The Truth at February 11, 2006 09:30 PM (kdcCc)
285
One more thing..since you all still live at home with your moms ..make sure you get a grown-up's permission to be out after 10pm because I'm more of a nite owl. I will first verify your real address by sending you a SASE with a return postcard..then I'll need 3 days to get off of work to come down!
Posted by: The Truth at February 11, 2006 09:35 PM (kdcCc)
286
wow!i thought i asked you for a well thought out reply there "the trooooth" how's that for mispelling? it goes too show you when someone can't take a little shit, well it's time to go columbine!i still live at home with my mom? did you come up with that all on your own?i knows i caints spail an all dat but at least you can't accuse me of being as boring and uncreative as yourself. are you going to be beating us up one by one there ? or should we all band toghether to fight off your evil powers. i'll fight you on one condition ok? i wan't to be BATMAN i never got to be a goodguy before.when i was little they use to call me names but since i've grown up and i wear BIG BOY PANTS now,i'll give ya my best.i'm sure in between carwashes you could find time too come and make me pay for my insulance voltron. dude you scared the beejeezus out of me with that threat. i just know that if you where anything serious or remotly a threat i would never ever ever be back on this site again .but since i have just got done wiping my eyes dry i realized it's a fuetile attempt at manlyhood.
Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 10:48 PM (FPOuk)
287
Anyone believe in the Bible? I do. Anyone read it. I heard a great sermon one time saying God has controll of the outcome of a War/Battle. I have heard numerous stories of clear skies being turned to foggy days and so on and so on. I have heard that the nation of Iraq may be numerous as the stars but would be constantly in battle from its creation, and never overcome. I have heard that Isreal will never fall. It's funny we are a nation so greatly blessed from God and of Hard working Grand/mothers and Grand/fathers but we barely give them due respect. I never intended to be here posting in this post but hey what the heck. God Bless all of you. Homosexual or not don't think its right but you'll have judgement day just like me. God Bless All OUR Troops living and in the past. Also Thank You for doing what you do.
I was actually looking for barrels and uppers (getting some prices) in 6.8SPC for an AR-15(AMERICAS RIFLE as reviewed in Guns and Ammo). When I saw this forum. Seems like a great forum just got off track a little or maybe that was tended. I love shooting. I have a .22lr from marlin semi-auto w/ tabsco scope nothing special but keeps a zero. I can shoot the eye balls out of squirrels at 100yard no problem. I Have a .300 Savage that will get out and tag a target, deer, elk, bear. The family takes the .22lr and uncles AR-15 to praire dogs when they get over populated. It gets the job done. I guess thats the biggest point I want to make. I work for a local sheriffs office so I try to stay on top of what works and what doesn't. A gun boils down to what are you going to use it for. The reason I'm pricing the 6.8SPC is for deer hunting not to say the .223 is illegal or to small of a caliber but that I'm lazy and don't like chasing it down. Something comes to mind like a (.22) would be a wise choice for military not to heavy small compact while staying accurate. No way I'm more traditional give a ten thousand foot soldier army knives, swords, and a mind to get the enemy line them up and have them scream yell and run toward their foe. Now give them a rifle call them Infantry men and do the same thing. Battles are fought the same way today as then use what works. Whats different from then and right now. A leader then made a firm desission not pussy footen around playing political games. If your going to war GO if not save lives fight another day. Another thing if they don't want it themselves they are lost anyways fuckem. Getting back to guns. I watched a documentry once on the Ak-47 I'm no expert. They say you can pick one up in Africa for less then $50. I don't care what u got the human body is no different the the game we hunt. An animal wants to live just as much as a human living. Shoot a opfr in the head he is going to drop. Shoot a opfr in the chest he may or may not drop. Shoot a opfr in the jewels he going to drop. Shootem in the arm leg got a chance small but a chance you took them out of action for a time. Ammo whats the best? .50cal .308 6.8SPC .223?
What gun do you got? AR AK
What the fuck are you doing?
How much weight do you want to dell with?
How many rounds?
Are you shooting elephants or opfr?
I want to be on S.W.A.T seems like a lot of agencies use .223 and 9mm all different manuf. good solid cal. for cqb. Not to heavy fires smooth at semi-auto. Cheep Ammo under $3.00 for 20. The .223 calb. is acc. at 100-300 yards no prob. You can mount all kinds of shit on it to and switch uppers.
_____________________________________________ Right now I'm close to getting an AR-15 short barreled Ar-15 (you can see it at this site http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976281562.htm ). Good gun 7.5' douglas barrel colt parts solid .223 no doubt.
It will stop home preditors and I can switch it for 6.8 deer rifle. _____________________________________________
Posted by: Sgt at February 11, 2006 11:55 PM (nK6Ca)
288
Sibak,
First and formost, i would like to say that my squad leader is from the 101st. Hes the best damn NCO ive ever met, and i have a lot of respect for most 101st guys. So hooah to ya.
Secondly, your facts on the AK are dead on. Chrome lined barrel or not, AK's arent as impervious to abuse and most people think. Ive actually seen an AK with a snapped gas rod (which was also frozen inside the gas chamber)
LOL This guys got me on a roll. He likes to talk shit to the men and boys who actually deal with this shit in real life, rather than learn a thing or two and gain some knowledge, no matter how unuseful it might be under his current conditions (or mommy live-in situation). You couldent have put that any better LOL.
Anyway, ive already put my two cents and mabye a little more on the performance of the kalashnikov vs. the M16. I dont wanna go over it anymore.
haha well said, sibak
cpl k
Posted by: CPL K. at February 13, 2006 10:58 AM (L8r/r)
289
How do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously when you are functionally illiterate? I see for the most part that only sibak and cpl k post on this section, because once other visitors see you are morons they move on to other sites where "real" soldiers post...just as I am about to do. The M-16 is shit!
Posted by: The Truth at February 13, 2006 11:23 AM (kdcCc)
290
the troooooooth ,when are you going to realize that real soldiers do write on this site? i have freinds that have posted info on here in hopes that guys like you will get a clue.also,members of law enforcement have added their opnions as well.i guess you know everything! so go ahead and cower down like i thought you would.if you can't take some heat for your stupid comments we'll miss slappin'you around.hey i got the perfect site you can go on where your kind can play together try www.al jezeera.com sorry for my spelling error again !but, if you ask jeeves or google it i'm sure you will find it!and let us know when the other guys you run into slap you around for your stupid remarks so we can get a good laugh there too!
Posted by: sibak at February 13, 2006 12:44 PM (FPOuk)
291
CPL K, i know you didn't need help slappin' this guy or girl around,i just had too get some myself.one of my coworkers is 101st and he went too iraq about 2 years ago maybe a little longer so i had too give those guys a "what's up" he reads this site but, dosn't have the time and patience to sit and think about this stuff. anyways the guy who posted that info on the 6.8 spc i thought to be interesting i have seen and read a little on that but have not seen alot of ammo on the market yet for that caliber. what is the scoop on this ? hope it's not another 45gap blunder. the 6.8spc sounds like it could fare well in the fight!and what's the skinny on the 77grain otm in 5.56mm by black hills? been a lot of info circulating that it flat out dumps 'em.anyone have any usefull info cause i got ahold of some factory seconds of these and am curious. i went and got a new COLT ar-15 a2 lightweight 1in7 twist just too shoot heavier bullets like that.shit there is so many opoinions on bullet performance now days it's bewildering! i am not limited to FMJ,s so i've gone too hollow points like TAP and 68grain BTHP even though they say it's not an expanding tip it's just the the way certain manufactures actually make the bullet.what's the deal? what do you guys who use this stuff day to day feel what works. by the way i'm only going to use it to kill paper but just want the best out there for my stash.it seems that the surplus federal xm193 ball ammo that i have barks nice is accurate and cleans up rather easily.oh and anyone else reading this the russian .223 sucks for AR's in couldn't get my rifle to cycle it.
Posted by: sibak at February 13, 2006 01:26 PM (FPOuk)
292
Youve gotta watch it. If youre shooting a newer AR-15 with a 1/7 twist rate, I THINK the M193 ball is too light, but i could be thinking of the SS109, which they used for the old M16A1's. I find that M855 works best with my AR that i use privatly. All we use in our service rifles (M4's and M16A4's) are M855 Ball spec. Same with the m249. 72 grains..
The russian laquer coated ammo is a NO GO with AR's. The steel casing will erode your chamber, and the laquer will build up and youll have problems, like failier to extract and such. Yeah, no go on the russian poo.
You wanna know where i get my private ammo around here? If i want to go out and do my own plinking, i buy my ammo from WALMART lol. Gunshops down here are over priced, but you can buy 40 rounds for 5 bucks, which is not bad, and niether is the ammo. Its winchester m193 spec. Works OK.
Anyway, kinda busy. Gotta run.
cpl k
Posted by: cpl k at February 14, 2006 09:02 AM (L8r/r)
293
CPL K
as a matter of fact i do buy the same ammo at walyworld "wal-mart" myself it's good! 55gr that is accurate and clean.yep the russian stuff sticks! cause:lacquer over a steel case it's poop! not enough powder in the case either.looking for some skinny on .45's though anyone have any on kimber's i owned one a while back loved it,thinking of trading a evil pre-ban bushy M-4 for one, somehow i ended up with 5 of 'em and want another .45 i have 2 early colts,a SA,but i really want another kimber custom II any problems that anyone know of with the external extractor on these?
living in a world of sheep
sibak
Posted by: sibak at February 14, 2006 11:40 AM (FPOuk)
294
Hey Sibak, I have 3 .45s, 2 Kimbers and an HK USP fullsize. My Kimbers are: an Ultra CDP II and a Warrior. I love them both, the CDP is super lightweight and the Warrior is great for dropping hammers(double taps), because it's so heavy. Both of them have captured extractors though, my cousin has a a TLE tactical II(don't quote me on that, kimber makes like 65 different 1911s) that has an external extractor and he has'nt had any problems with it after several thousand rounds. That warrior is super accurate, so is the CDP though, although the CDP has a full length guide rod, something that I would like to do away with but I am not going to F-with. Up until I got my warrior, most to the 1911s that I had handled and shot were bushingless and had full length guide rods. Press checking that warrior is cool. Full size 1911s are cool. My USP is badass too. .45s rule. Later man
Posted by: Nick at February 14, 2006 06:17 PM (x1LgB)
295
NICK
right on that's the feedback i was looking for.alot of the guys at the gunshpos wan't to sell and really don't care how many times you have too send a gun you got from them back to get it working right again.
so,before i make the leap i looked at a kimber custom II tle, when i picked her up i knew she was the one.but, i gotta say the warrior is a fine pistola i dig the tactical rail and the sand desert color, the guys had one in black same thing looked and felt way good.
as for the USP i had one and loved it,don't know why i ever got rid of it!but anyways i'll end up with one here soon. good shootin!
Posted by: sibak at February 14, 2006 10:35 PM (FPOuk)
296
I should have known that a site called the Jawa Report couldn't be taken serious.
Obviously this is where the Rejects and Wannabees post.
The Truth is right, and this Solider is moving on.
Posted by: RealSolider at February 19, 2006 02:08 PM (fRLRr)
297
blah,blah,blah, wannabe what buddy? just because some of us are not in the military as you say you are, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.sounds like the truth finally made a freind.i'm sure you both will have a nice life together,anyways what does being in the military have to do with supreme knowledge as you yourself seem to have about guns?have not seen any posts by you that has stated you know anything about them!so why dont you state a valid reason everyone on here is a wannabe reject and let us marvel at your vast intellect and knowledge "real soldier"
Posted by: sibak at February 20, 2006 11:55 AM (FPOuk)
298
real soldier,
i have too say you take sides with a guy who has earlier on this website who qouted"no wonder you guys can't take control of iraq"what kind of real soldier would side with a POS like that,unless you are a real soldier who is on the side of our enemy.
i was a real soldier and can verify that i am not a wannabee or a reject. i was in the MARINES in vietnam in 1967 and 1968.2LT.,1stBn.,9th Marine Regt.,3rd Marine Division, near Cam Lo RVN,
let me say this that there is some guys probably on this site that are FOS,i am not one of them! i read these sites too support our current troops abroad, and have found that there are alot of idiots out there, and you sound like one.
as for "the truth" let me ask you this. have you ever fired a weapon at anyone? have you ever been fired at?
let me tell you how many times the M-16 has gotten me out of a jam, not given me one.as i have since recently retired, i have alot of time too read crap like yours and debunk it.i do have some real info for you people, about our current service weapon. studies have shown that most of the problems with the M-16 are being reported from the rear. frontline combat troops are not for the most part and very rarely expierencing functional performance issues with the M-16.with our current theatre and its environment proper cleaning and pre combat checks of their weapons are showing that the M-16 is providing excellent combat performance,as with in any combat environment maintanence is first and foremost.
Do you think the enemy does not want his weapon to not perform? they also clean,repair and check their weapons.i did not point out that our enemies in the middle east have been fighting in that environment before firearms were even a thought.they do have many problems as we do.
We have advanced equipment,tactics and logistics that can overcome the basic issue of weapon malfuctions if it is used.
I needed to point out that just because some of our own forces have pointed out issues does not mean that it is a terminal problem and officially our service arm is the problem.
Let me tell you about real combat! not from a political view, from a 1st hand view.For every soldier that has an issue with his weapon there are many others that don't.
Posted by: pepper at February 20, 2006 02:28 PM (FPOuk)
299
pepper,
i have too say i agree with all of that.as well as probably most of us rejects and wannabees i think you've sounded off on that without any problems.as with anything else in this world most problems can be attributed to human error and neglect.there wouldn't be half the junkyards of old worn down crappy cars in this country if people exercized a little TLC on the things they own.especially something they depended on too save their life.
anyways.... nick if your still checking out this site like some of the other wannabees and rejects, i got a kimber custom royal now, and plan to take this thing out for a ride....
let you know how it shoots here soon.
good shoooootin.......!
Posted by: sibak at February 21, 2006 09:21 PM (FPOuk)
300
Cant believe im reading this. How do you guys sleep at night? Yer seriously twisted. Show some compassion. DOnt forget this shit kills people.
And get the fuck out of iraq
Posted by: John Smith at February 27, 2006 11:42 PM (ct4Xw)
301
john,
i sleep very well thank you.show some compassion to who?oh, and thank you for reminding us that guns kill people, we all had forgotten that.why dont you stay on the liberal websites so none of us will waste the time making you look like an idiot.another clinton/gore left over! like i always say to you people ""CLINTON,A GOOD EXAMPLE WHY STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T VOTE""!
Posted by: sibak at February 28, 2006 02:44 PM (FPOuk)
302
Lets not forget the round that the Brits conqured the world with, .303 British (.30
.
Nuff said.
Next about the 9mm vs .45 ACP
Maybe a .45 Gap or even a .40, just to lessen the weight. Gotta keep mobility in mind.
.
Nuff said.
Next about the 9mm vs .45 ACP
Maybe a .45 Gap or even a .40, just to lessen the weight. Gotta keep mobility in mind.Posted by: terrence pallend at March 03, 2006 06:19 PM (4mQum)
303
terrence
yup,nuff said.the .303 is everywhere and it's done it's job.yeah i'm a big .45acp fan myself, but i happen too respect the 9mm i have had multiple pistols in that caliber.i just got my first .40 a few months back and i happen to have a CCW in my home state and think it's a good comprimise between the two.i would like too see more on the GAP but, it seems like it's not cathin' on. who knows? we'll see huh?
Posted by: sibak at March 07, 2006 08:55 PM (FPOuk)
304
NICK!!!!!!CPL K!!!!!!!
what happend too you guys? did the TROOOOOOTH find you? am i the only one left?shit i guess he got you guys.hhhhhhmmmmmmm i guess i better haul ass before he gets me too. hahahahaha fuck say something fellas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i have gun stuff i wanta ask you?
Posted by: sibak at March 07, 2006 09:02 PM (FPOuk)
305
Yeah sibak I'm still here, just been hanging out in Houston going to school and working. Done a little shooting here, but almost lost my job because I had a weapon in my vehicle. It's all cool though, time to talk to the NRA because theres no way I am going to travel unarmed. Anyway, what have you got? I know a little.... drop me a line.
Posted by: Nick at March 09, 2006 10:27 PM (x1LgB)
306
nick
hey check out packing.org if you have a CCW, it's called a CPL (concealed pistol license) in washington.packing.org lists alot of local laws where you live and also shows you where your permit is honored in other states,hate to see you get into trouble.i just got mine,i have carried my glock in my car and on me and had no trouble at all.anyways been shooting this kimber royal i piked up and it kicks ass!
i wanted to ask if you carry that CDP II you said you had,wanted to get one. it looks comfortable and what type of rig you got it in?
just moving from CA. i never thought i could legally carry a pistol but i can here and some other states honor WA's permit.
anyways if you dont have a permit get one! if you do check out that website it will help you out with some local and state laws.i think Texas is pretty easy going on that. later dude let me know eh'.........
Posted by: sibak at March 13, 2006 11:13 AM (FPOuk)
307
Hey sibak, it wasn't the state or law enforcement that I had a problem w/, it was my roomate here where my employer has put us up. He wasn't comfortable w/ me having a weapon in the room, could have something to do w/ the fact that he shot himself in the knee a while ago, anyway he is a douche bag w/ a loud mouth. I take my pistol everywhere I can. I have two concealed permits. One for WA state and one for WY, where I live. Texas shares reciprocity w/ WY so I won't have any problems. My companies policy says no firearms on company property, there was a case where a whole bunch of people who were working for Phillips (dont quote me)and lost their jobs over the same deal. My company was cool w/ the way I handled it though, so everything is good and I still have my J O B. As for my holsters, I have three for my 1911s. One was given to me and it's a Safariland paddle holster that rides real high and covers most of the pistol. I dont wear it that often. The second is also a Safariland that rides lower and has an open top. I've carried my CDP alot in this holster, up until last year. My cousin bought a holster for his 1911 but the muzzle stuck out the bottom(it's supposed to) and he didn't like it. So he gave it to me, score because it has become my favorite holster. It is a Blackhawk CQC size 01 and it fits that CDP perfectly. I also carry a couple xtra Wilson Combat mags in a Safariland mag pouch. Anyway, check into that CQC, you'll love it. By the way I hate CA too..Later man
Posted by: Nick at March 15, 2006 07:07 AM (x1LgB)
308
nick,
right on, sounds like you need a new room mate!well at least he didn't shoot himself in the brain pan! the safariland is the one everyone is gabbing about,i think i'll try it out.for the same reason as your cousin i'm going to get a smaller sized 1911 maybe a CDPII,i like the beveled edges.those wilson mags (have a few) work like nothing else,worth the $$$$$$!,hey man your room mate dosn't go under the alias "the truth" does he?anyways i picked up a couple of those HK 30's for my AR's these things are fucking tight! the best i have used except for the BETA C mag, if you have an AR check these out.i'll look into that Blackhawk CQC when i pick up a compact 1911, by the way i have a buddy in sheriden WY,it's the place to be!and as for KALIFORNIA i'm never going back!!! just before i moved i lived in Sacramento, and had a job at city hall doing some HVAC work, what a joke! saw arnie one time at a distance,couldn't get near the big boy at all,didn't want too anyways,they just told us bottom feeders to stay away.anyways bro-take it easy later...........
Posted by: sibak at March 15, 2006 03:18 PM (FPOuk)
309
I stumbled upon this site looking for for socom 2 opinions, but thought I'd tell y'all 'bout my Iraq experience. I just got back from a year at LSA Anaconda (Balad) where I worked for KBR fueling everything that rolls. Being a gun nut I talked to frontline soldiers (and Iraqis and TCNs from all over the world) everyday about everything. About our weapons: all said their M16/M4s worked (fairly) reliably as long as they kept them clean. Note they said fairly. All preferred open sites to anything, but the army makes them use the halo type scopes. A lot said they hesitate firing instinctively for fear of repurcussions (e.g. courtmarshall). Career caliber officers are getting out because of the B.S. (REMFs). I myself had to adhere to some of these insane policies. But for the average troops, I have nothing but even more repect than ever for the professionalism of our guys. I just can't tell ya how much they impressed me. The Iraqis - they're all backward pieces of shit - except the Kurds, who aren't really Iraqis, still backward,but at least friendly to the U.S. The absolutely stupidest thing I saw was most soldiers using shoulder holsters where the barrel is pointing straight back and up at an angle. Everyday at lunch I was staring straight down the barrel. I just couldn't fucking believe it. To not prevent this tells me how fucked up our commanders over there are.
Truth: Turks are the rednecks of the middle-east and ALL are thieves. Looked down on by everyone in that area of the world.
No M16 for me. I've got an older M14. No 9mm. I've got a Sig P220(.45). My daily carry is a S&W 340PD(.357) loaded w/.38+P. Shit, my cell phone weighs more. Anyone got any experience w/ the SOCOM 2 or PTR91. I'm thinkin 'bout getting one of those.
Posted by: scott at March 18, 2006 01:38 AM (F5u0A)
310
But where are the flame-throwers ?
Posted by: tokamak at March 18, 2006 10:42 AM (dTdy0)
311
But where are the flame-throwers ?
Posted by: tokamak at March 18, 2006 10:43 AM (dTdy0)
312
I just can't resist saying this, even though I have only read about half way through the comments. I agree with gunut about 100 percent, and Improbulus Maximus, I think you are pretty much full of sh*t. No one ex-military would brag about their career in it and say all the crap that you are. I think that you could be ex-mil, but that it is unlikely. The .223 bullet used in the M16 and its varients could be considered insufficient, but is good enough for people who can shoot worth a damn. I personally think that your dislike of the AR series is because you prefer the AK, and your bias towards it is clouding your judgement.
Posted by: Larson at March 18, 2006 06:27 PM (0JAn2)
313
tokamak, no flamethrowers but some scouts carry cool silenced M4s. Some of the SAWs have collapsible stocks. The coolest system is a remote .50 cal where the gunner sits behind the humvee driver with a joystick and an LCD screen. They (contractor reps) were installing these @ Anaconda.
Posted by: scott at March 19, 2006 11:23 AM (F5u0A)
314
everything you had to say sat right with me, but not the M249 SAW. i know the M249 that was my baby for over 500 days in iraq. it was not hard to keep her claen just 10 min to 20 min everday and she nevr let me down. and i was not some gay ass fobit, i'm an infantryman and i used that SAW more times than i ues my hot mail.
Posted by: spc.smith at March 21, 2006 03:45 AM (Xv+jw)
315
hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.
from,
fatmonkey
Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)
316
hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.
from,
fatmonkey
Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)
317
hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.
from,
fatmonkey
Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)
318
SCOTT
hey nice too see some new guys writing here,especially military.i still love the hell out of the ar-15 albeit,mine will never see those conditions you guys have.iv'e never had any problems with any of mine.
i'm not saying i won't,so if it means anything i have a SOCOM II i got it about 4 months ago.when i picked it up from the gunshop the salesman told me that i could not shoot commercial ammo!!! what!!! so i went and fired commercial ammo and did not have ANY problems nor have i heard of anyone else...
that was said to me because it was a rumor because of barrel length it needed a higher pressure to cycle.meaning mil-spec ammo.i don't know if anyone else has heard that.mine shoots damn good,a bit of a muzzle flash though. that dosn't mean shit in my o'pinion.it's worth the trade off.i understand from Springfeild Armory that the gas system was tuned for the shorter barrel length to operate with all types of ammo.i'll leave that to you man. mine SHOOTS great,NO PROBLEMS!the accessory rails are nice it's a liitle uncomfortable grabbing it without a forward mount underneath but,it still shoots just fine....hope that helps you out bro.
Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:27 PM (FPOuk)
319
tyler hows that bro???????
Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:34 PM (FPOuk)
320
i hope it worked this time trying to post a picture of a m249 saw, i don't think they will let me do that here..........
Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:41 PM (FPOuk)
321
ahhhhh NUTS!!!
cant post a picture for ya sorry dude,i tried...
Hey larson impotent maximus is all over the net saying the same old garbage,the 5.56mm works everytime i use it.say it plug clean holes through some chevrolet 350 heads,what do you expect from an AK gay guy......i'll use my AR and M1A when it really counts.i mean how many areas in the U.S. can compare the middle east anyways...... f'him and his stupid opinions...
Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:50 PM (FPOuk)
Chirac Announces Terms of French Surrender
Once again, after a valiant struggle, the French bow to the inevitable. It is said that Chirac bravely turned down an offer from President Bush to send five Marines to help put down the rioting [thanks to Sandy Shanks for forwarding that hilarious email].
Allons enfants de la Patrie...
From Agence France Presse:
Chirac described the unrest as "a crisis of meaning, a crisis of identity," saying it was the sign of a "deep malaise" in French society.Yes, yes, we have all had our cheap fun mocking the French for their little foibles; their arrogance, hypocrisy, incompetence, greed, treachery, military pinheadedness, political stupidity, ingratitude, spreading stinky cheese on everything, illegal profiteering, collaboration, encouragement of Jerry Lewis, etc., but...what shall we do when there are no more French? The foot will be in the other shoe then, mes amis, and the most endearing aspect of our surly little quiche-eating surrender monkeys may be simply the fact that they were...French."I wish to tell the children from these difficult neighbourhoods, whatever their origins, that they are all sons and daughters of the republic," he said in a televised address.
The president announced the creation of a paid training and employment scheme for 50,000 youths from such areas and a series of measures to improve access to the workplace and to combat discrimination.
Oh well, we still have Québec...and, of course, in a pinch, Cajuns.
Cette poste est aussi ecriver sur The Dread Pundit Bluto. Le Bluto est bon. Trés bon. Et beau. Comme le Bruce Willis.
Posted by: Bluto at
01:37 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
1
What shall we do when there are no more French?
Cheer?
50,000 isn't a lot in a country of 65million
Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at November 15, 2005 03:14 AM (cZrVc)
2
"Le Bluto est bon"
Mais Oui!
Chirac et la tete de merde... non?
ca va!
-M
Posted by: mychimo at November 15, 2005 03:37 AM (Ky2LJ)
3
Oh no, a terrible hurricane coming to Finland
(- -)zZzZzZ
Damages this far: 1 summer cottage in Norway, a mild flood in Estonia, power's out in a few thousand households, and the darn thing won't turn into a blizzard so it's absolutely useless.
Nice try to get a permanent snowlayer in a day, but it's toooooo daaaaarn waaaarm. Thanks a friggin' lot, Gulf Stream warmers...
Posted by: A Finn at November 15, 2005 04:45 AM (cWMi4)
4
Should this be on Koran as well?
http://uncyclopedia.org/images/thumb/1/12/180px-BibleWarningLabel.jpg
Posted by: A Finn at November 15, 2005 05:07 AM (cWMi4)
5
Regarding France's treachery, military pinheadedness, arrogance, collaboration, etc: Early last year I came across this in the Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine. (It's a secure page on their server that is somehow available without a login.) Lieutenant Commander William Bray recounts his time on the USS Nimitz and some very questionable behavior exhibited by the French in late 1998 in the waters surrounding the Middle East. The article is a fascinating read and about half way down, in bold face, you'll see With Friends Like These .... That's where he describes what appears to be treachery perpetrated by the French.
This is just another piece of the French puzzle in their complicity, arrogance and ignorance that has led to what looks like could be their undoing. They've aligned themselves with the Muslim world to the point that I wonder if they'll ever be able to extract themselves before they get sucked down the drain.
If you have any trouble accessing the page and are interested, I have the full text and other parts of the series as well. Although this is the part dealing directly with France.
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 05:48 AM (YudAC)
6
The French are a egostistical and underhanded, but given the choice between having a France ruled by Frogs or a France ruled by the Religion of Peas, I'd take the former. Plus it's not like there aren't nice French people out there. I can say that about, uh, one French guy I know. It's a start I guess.
As for Chrirac's training and employment scheme, might I recommend that it be restricted to "Advanced Vehicular Licence Plate Design and Construction for Isolated Penal Colonies 101".
Posted by: Graeme at November 15, 2005 05:48 AM (r2qQp)
7
Yahoo! It turned into a blizz... darn, it's wet snow, nevermind.
Posted by: A Finn at November 15, 2005 07:23 AM (cWMi4)
8
Where's Rusty? Not enough Rusty. Must read Rusty-posts.
Posted by: A Finn at November 15, 2005 07:27 AM (cWMi4)
9
You forgot the chainsmoking and totally gay berets. Those berets are an abomination for which I will never forgive them!
Posted by: Insomniac at November 15, 2005 09:39 AM (IEpte)
10
Finn,
Go to Colorado. There is a hell of a blizzard going on there, or at least there was last night. So you know that the whole world has not gone wrong. As for me, I am still waiting for the weather to cool off so I can go deer hunting. I don't like to clean game when the temp is 65 degrees. It's supposed to be 30 by tomorrow AM. So watch out, deer!
Ah, the French! One would think at least someone there would have the balls to do something besides cave in. I will tell you right here, right now, that the Muslims will not be satisfied with the small carrot Chirac offered. They will want it all. This weak response will only encourage more violence, perhaps the kind that will wake the French up. One can only hope so.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 09:56 AM (rUyw4)
11
The french chicken is still a chicken
Posted by: sandpiper at November 15, 2005 10:26 AM (MNa1O)
12
GEN LeJeune was a Cajun.
My great Grand father was a US infantryman wounded in WWI.
Two of my uncles were wounded veterans of WWII. One was wounded on D-Day and again during the Battle of the Bulge. My father was a blackhat during the Korean War.
My cousin was a marine during the Vietnam War.
My baby brother was a plank owner on the USS Normandy.
I am Airborne, Ranger and Jumpmaster qualified. 21 year veteran of the USARMY.
Anytime your fat ass wants to take on this Cajun jump your happy ass on down to Lafayette, LA.
PUNK!
Posted by: Bullshark at November 15, 2005 11:40 AM (drVg7)
13
Bullshark, it's been a long time since the Cajuns left France, and apparently, they took all the manhood with them, and left the country to a bunch of nancy-boys.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:08 PM (0yYS2)
14
I like Cajuns and I sure as hell like their food! Greetings from Texas, Bullshark!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 12:20 PM (rUyw4)
15
Saw this coming with the French - not surprised. Next to follow - applaud themselves for their restraint and "innovative" solutions - not like those "stupid barbaric" Americans! Any doubters?
Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 12:32 PM (Jvmry)
16
The longer the French put off a solution to the problem, the bloodier the solution will be, whether the native French prevail or the Islamists.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 12:36 PM (rUyw4)
17
But the French are going to give em all public works jobs 50,000 of them so won't that fix everything? where is Napoleon when you need him?
Posted by: Howie at November 15, 2005 12:46 PM (D3+20)
18
Get off the Cajuns. The ones around here have balls. Most popular Tee shirt. Ashamed to be French. Shows their feelings.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 01:49 PM (ZaAd/)
19
Bullshark demonstrates why Cajuns were listed as a poor substitute for actual French, to wit, absence of testicular atrophy.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 15, 2005 01:49 PM (RHG+K)
20
Yes! At least a foot of snow every hour since 16:00. A quick transformation from spring to winter in 3 hours, and the snow keeps on coming. Now where are my skis... Oh yes, sorry, winter stuff shall replace blog trolling/commenting,
Posted by: A Finn at November 15, 2005 02:21 PM (lGolT)
21
You see, Finn, get with the positive waves and see what happens! A snow storm from Colorado to Finland. Heh!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 02:53 PM (rUyw4)
22
I was going to add to this commentary on the French but everything has pretty much been said. Have to admit I admire Napoleon though even though I didn't agree with his foreign policy...but then again he was from Corsica, which really isn't that French.
Posted by: Jester at November 15, 2005 03:11 PM (JDzHB)
23
Who gives a shit about the snow. Here when we want it. We make it.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 06:35 PM (ZaAd/)
24
Who's dissing the Cajuns anyway? I say let's draft General Honore for President!
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 10:01 PM (0yYS2)
25
Honore? Now there's a "no bullshit" guy.
Posted by: Oyster at November 16, 2005 05:41 AM (YudAC)
26
Bullshark,
My mother was cajun (I was adopted, she took on 3 of us at once, talk about courage!). She was tougher than most men I know, and taught me how to be a "survivalist" to the point that when I went into the Army at 17 I was already trained for it. I went Airborne Ranger Forward Recon.
I say Cajuns are the best France ever produced...too bad Frabce didn't keep some of the balls even Cajun Women have!
I stand by you. Bring on the nay syaers that say Cajuns are as bad a the French Surrender Monkies....
Tex
Posted by: Texas Marksman at November 16, 2005 11:33 AM (dyUaJ)
27
Like I said Marksman, when the Cajuns left France, apparently they took all the real men with them.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:38 AM (0yYS2)
28
It looks to me like when the Cajuns(Acadians) left Canada they just about took all the balls from France and Canada. My friends in Canada, I'm referring to the French part of Canada, so please don't get mad at me.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 03:24 PM (rUyw4)
29
Most of the brave French died during WWI.
hmm, the name Honoré rings a bell..
Check this out, they must be related: Henri Honore Giraud
captured in the Battle of Guise in August 1914 when he was seriously wounded but escaped two months later
Again captured during WW2:
General Giraud planned his escape carefully over two years. He learned German and memorized a map of the surrounding area. On April 17, 1942 he lowered himself down the cliff of the mountain fortress (164 ft). He had shaved off his moustache and wore a Tyrolean hat, travelling to Schandau to meet his SOE contact.
and he was just 61 years at the time.
Posted by: FN at November 16, 2005 04:25 PM (7ZsmI)
30
I gotta admit you rednecks make me laugh.
Posted by: Matt at November 23, 2005 10:35 AM (sRCL0)
31
To all FRENCHMEN.... I despise your cowardice, your ineptness, your treachery, your hatred and jealousy of America... But, I have found that you snivelling frogs have ONE redeeming value! You will be taken to processing plants in the USA, where you shall be stripped, washed, boiled, and then ground into Alpo dog food! I wonder how many cans of Alpo "International Flavors" can be made from an average skinny weakling french idiot! Vive la France!!!!
Posted by: brainbuster at December 03, 2005 06:10 AM (fF1Xu)
32
>I wonder how many cans of Alpo "International Flavors" can be made from an average skinny weakling french idiot! Vive la France!!!!
Not good business for Alpo since they would not get enough meat per Frenchman to make it profitable. On the other hand, if you used all the stupidly overweight fat americans (like most of your wives I would guess) then they could feed all the stray dogs and cats in the world... if they can get past the taste (although throwing in some Cajun might help a bit).
Posted by: Bubba at December 07, 2005 09:33 AM (YAEN3)
33
Hmmmm, a bit borderline racist this thread... it does cross the border.
You people act like foreign policy and national characteristics are very, very important to the individual en masse.
Posted by: Toteone at December 24, 2005 11:36 AM (zmJ+l)
November 14, 2005
Cool Mom Johnson Gets 30 Years
(Denver, Colorado) Last July, 41-year-old 'Cool Mom' Sylvia Johnson (photo) pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor sex-assault counts and nine felony counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Today, Cool Mom Johnson was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Previous Jawa posts here, here and here. Companion at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
08:57 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Am I the only one who thinks this is outlandish?
Posted by: Tony B at November 14, 2005 10:23 PM (mozBv)
2
Now she can be really cool - join a girlgang, get tattoos and have lots of sex.
Posted by: hondo at November 14, 2005 10:45 PM (Jvmry)
3
That picture? Decidedly uncool.
Posted by: Christopher Cross at November 14, 2005 10:53 PM (0JB8o)
4
Tonly B: Outlandish that she get 30 years? Or outlandish as in her behavior?
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 06:13 AM (YudAC)
5
How did that "L" get in there?
Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 06:14 AM (YudAC)
6
Thirty years? what can we learn from this example?
Well for one, twenty four years of it is the price of not being good looking and a child molester? Tammy Imre molested an eightyear old boy, and was only sentenced to six years!
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/131150.php
To be a little more honest, the fact she defied the court and was found to be with minors, and involved in a serious motor vehicle accident by letting a minor drive probably contributed to a large part of her sentance.
This not only showed a dangerous lapse of reasoning, but a uncontrollable compulsion to continue molesting.
Posted by: dave at November 15, 2005 08:34 AM (CcXvt)
7
Having a mother in prison is cool!
Posted by: Bullshark at November 15, 2005 11:42 AM (drVg7)
8
Yet something else for which to thank liberalism. Mothers aren't supposed to be cool, they're supposed to teach their kids right from wrong. God I hate liberals.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:05 PM (0yYS2)
9
30 years @ $30,000 per year. $900,000 bucks and guess who pays. If she does all her time and gets out at 71 she will then be on welfare for the rest of her life. This move probably cost the taxpayers well over a $1,000,000. Justice? Justice for who? The taxpayer? Bullshit!
When someone becomes such a nuisance/burden to society that he/she needs 30 years to correct their actions I say one of two things should happen. Either off with their heads or more to a muslim country where they will feel at home. And screw you crybaby liberals who caused this shit.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 01:57 PM (ZaAd/)
10
I meant outlandish that she got 30 years. Yeah, all the standard bromides that she was wrong and all... but 30 effin' YEARS?
Posted by: Tony B at November 15, 2005 03:03 PM (mozBv)
11
So I took a survey among the my male cow-orkers. 9 out of 9 wondered where these women were when we were growing up.....
And how many of you of the male persuasion did NOT wonder the same thing. Not to excuse the behaviour. Just to illustrate the different perception between FEMALE molesters of underage boys, and MALE molesters of underage girls. We'd as fathers gladly castrate a male having sex with an underage daughter, on the otherhand wonder where these women were when we were underage males. A male fantasy for sure. (though after looking at the picture in the article it looks more like a male nightmare!)
Posted by: jocrazy0 at November 15, 2005 04:11 PM (6RZ2o)
12
I spent three years trying to pork my high school English teacher. I would have been a hero. Admired by all.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 06:42 PM (ZaAd/)
Blogging Blagojevich
Yes since Gov Rod's helpers seem so interested in my saftey let's see what their boss is up to.
ILL Republican Newsletter Nov 4th
·ROD WON'T TALK. As of today, the new Blagojevich administration policy, regarding confirming subpoenas delivered to state agencies, will be 'not to say anything' and refer inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's office. This week's state agency receipts included four new subpoenas in what appears to be an investigation, agency by agency, into suspicious hiring practices. Apparently, there are so many incoming subpoenas that confirming each and every one would take up too much of the governor's press office time. The U.S. Attorney's office is not in the habit of commenting on ongoing investigations. The administrations' disappointing decision puts an end to any transparency the office may have had. A veil of secrecy over the administration's legal wounds will prove to be a politically damaging practice. (Sun Tim es 11/4)
· ICC CHAIRMAN FAILS TO PASS SENATE. Marty Cohen failed to receive enough votes from the Illinois State Senate this week to be confirmed as the new ICC Chairman. Cohen was seen as a politically motivated nomination by Governor Blagojevich, who wanted to appear to be consumer friendly to voters through Cohen's history as an advocate who has long fought the same energy providers he would be required to work with as ICC chair. Cohen came out and slammed both Democrat and Republican Senators who have received contributions from the energy lobby. If the Governor really supports Cohen, he should return the $110,000 that he received from the energy lobby. (Tribune 11/4/05)
ILL Republican newsletter 11/11 : NO COAT TAILS FOR ROD. Who knew that only three years into his administration Governor Blagojevich would have such little clout in his own party that the collection of petition signatures would be such a challenge? A Democratic precinct committeewoman from Sangamon County complained this week about the trouble she is having getting people to sign petitions for state- wide candidates. "Quite a few of the people have adamantly stated they will not sign it because Blagojevich is on there," the unidentified committeewoman said. (Journal Register 11/10/05)
· RIDING THE ETHICAL EDGE. State employees have had dual roles as it was revealed that more than four hundred parole officers were asked by the Blagojevich administration to distribute letters to community organizations advertising Rod's political accomplishments. The Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") received a similar request from the administration to use their employees to hand out letters praising the Governor for his policies for welfare recipients. DCFS employees turned down the Governor's request. The use of state employees to tout the governor's political accomplishments to the public walks a very fine ethical line. Democratic state Rep. John Fritchey agreed with the criticism, "Regardless of the legality of their actions, in this day and age having state employees undertake this kind of activity is going to unavoidably raise questions as well as cynicism." (Daily Herald 11/8/05)
Posted by: Howie at
03:41 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hey, nice Rod story today.
Posted by: Tony Joyce at November 14, 2005 06:57 PM (zU7nx)
2
What is it about these dinocrats that makes them think they can loot and pillage the public purse like they did in the old day? Haven't they ever heard of the internet?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 14, 2005 07:08 PM (0yYS2)
Irving Mainway's Christmas Catalog
Saw this over at etoys.com:
Start em' out, young, I says, so they can help granny pull the levers while she changes out her oxygen tank!
I know, these have been around forever, and I think I wanted one from the Sears catalog when I was but a wee lad in short pants. ("For ages 8 and up!") But as a dad now I look at that and wonder, what were they thinking? aren't there some parts of life we just want to keep away from our kids for a decent interval?
What's next? What kind of real-life toys are on their way?
Vito the Debt Collector action figure with audible leg-snapping feature?
Lil' Snuggles Happy Hash Pipe?
Pimp characters for the Bratz dolls?
Flophouse Atlantic City Canopy Bed, with Realistic Junkie-barf Stains?
Lil' Tykes Jiggle & Giggle Stripper Pole?
Holly Hobby I-can-mix-it Tequila Bar?
Grope & Fumble Make-believe Frat Party?
Barbie Planned Parenthood Clinic?
Never mind, don't tell me what's next. I know I won't like it.
Posted by: seedubya at
02:13 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Oy...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 14, 2005 03:23 PM (0yYS2)
2
heh.
I learned to play blackjack in the back seat of the car on the way to Vegas, at the age of about 10. But then, I have responsible parents.
Posted by: KG at November 14, 2005 03:25 PM (eRMCR)
3
Or the toys we don't really mean for our kids to find other uses for. Like the vibrating "Harry Potter Nimbus 2000" broom. Remember that one? Sometimes, no matter how careful you are ...
Posted by: Oyster at November 14, 2005 03:39 PM (fl6E1)
4
Well let's look at the practical side for a moment; given that today's children won't have socialist security when they retire, if they learn to become good gamblers early on, they can make up for it with a good knowledge of Texas Hold'em.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 14, 2005 03:46 PM (0yYS2)
5
I think that parents should reinforce the notion that while gambling can be fun, sometimes it can have very bad consequences. For instance, the manufacturer should set the machine to randomly alternate the prizes - say between quarters and dog poo. The kid's playing with the machine too often? The parents can adjust it to dispense poo more often. Of course there are some practical issues with my plan that still need fine tuning.
Posted by: Graeme at November 14, 2005 04:54 PM (I1uKf)
6
I like your plan, Graeme. Let the kids clean the poo.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 06:52 PM (rUyw4)
7
Can everyone see that picture? Howie e-mailed me to say it's blank.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 14, 2005 09:35 PM (yhNln)
8
I see a picture of a one-armed bandit!
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 09:42 PM (rUyw4)
The Iraqi Willie Horton
Galley Slaves, a blog run by the Weekly Standard's editors, tells us more about one of the Jordanian bombers: He'd been detained on suspicion of terrorist activities by US forces in Iraq, and then released due to a lack of compelling evidence.
Without knowing more about the circumstances of his detention and release, I'm not going to throw too many stones. We have a finite amount of jail space, interrogators, etc. It doesn't do us any good to lock up people and hold them indefinitely without cause, and it doesn't win us any friends. On the other hand, I have to agree with the Slaves:
Maybe requiring our military to meet the full burden of U.S. law when it comes to detaining terrorists isn't the best idea.
While you're over there, check out their post on the incompetent MSM hitjob on CS Lewis. Teaser--he smoked many cigarettes! He had sex once! Possibly with his wife, I can't tell!
It's hilarious how the intelligentsia try to manipulate Christians based upon their own warped understanding of them, no doubt derived from their own hilarious propaganda.
Posted by: seedubya at
01:54 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"Maybe requiring our military to meet the full burden of U.S. law when it comes to detaining terrorists isn't the best idea."
Maybe we should just make up quotes about what level of burden is required, specially a quote that brings up our criminal justice system and its various constitutional and statutory burdens.
Posted by: actus at November 14, 2005 03:40 PM (CqheE)
2
One wonders why this man was detained in the first place. I would like to know a lot more about his detention before I make my mind up about his release from US custody. I have an idea, but I will wait.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 03:52 PM (rUyw4)
3
As usual, rectus manages to make no sense whatsoever. Perhaps he's trying to say we should just tag and release them back into the wild, kinda like problem bears?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 14, 2005 07:10 PM (0yYS2)
4
Keep on doing sweeps and lock up all Iraqi males 8-80. It's a great recruiting campaign...for the mujahideen.
As was forecast:the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists. Maybe they'll take a hint from O'Reilly, blow up SF and help Bush's approval rating go back up.
ya bunch of freaks!
Posted by: Jawa and all Jawa supporters....Suck! at November 15, 2005 09:39 AM (/3n/k)
5
A cowardly troll makes an appearance. What a little piss ant you are.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
6
"Perhaps he's trying to say we should just tag and release them back into the wild, kinda like problem bears?"
Its more that of course he was released pursuant to some burden of US law -- that's what governs the military abroad. They're not lawless. Its ambiguous whether this is the same burden that applies to suspects held domestically in our regular criminal justice system.
Posted by: actus at November 15, 2005 12:05 PM (CqheE)
7
The burden of law is fine when it's civilian authorities dealing with citizens in criminal matters, but when the military is dealing with a determined and ruthless enemy in a war zone, the burden of law only produces more dead. The choice the military faces is between possibly mistakenly killing or detaining an innocent civilian, and letting a terrorist live to kill even more innocent civilians and soldiers. Only an idiot would not see the logic of erring to the side of pragmatic caution. Those who fight wars by a fixed set of rules are doomed to lose.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:16 PM (0yYS2)
8
"The burden of law is fine when it's civilian authorities dealing with citizens in criminal matters, but when the military is dealing with a determined and ruthless enemy in a war zone, the burden of law only produces more dead."
What is 'the burden of law' that you're referring to?
Posted by: actus at November 15, 2005 03:03 PM (CqheE)
Five Simple Questions
The LA TimesÂ’ Dennis Prager asks five simple questions of law abiding Muslims.
(1) Why are you so quiet?
(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude?
Good questions Mr. Prager. See the link Dennis spells out the reasons why he asks each question.
Posted by: Howie at
01:25 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Prager's a pretty smart dude. He rambles on in his talk show sometimes, but his writing's usually really sharp.
Posted by: See-Dubya at November 14, 2005 01:56 PM (yhNln)
2
...and why do so many do-gooders in western society make excuses for muslims and try to accommodate their religion when we all know it is a million times worse than fascism.
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 02:48 PM (JDzHB)
3
Jester - The "do-gooders" you refer to are either leftists, or the MSM/DNC. These folks like muslims because Muslims hate Judeo-Christian values. Which translates into capitalist, English speaking countries ie USA, UK, Australia. That is why the make excuses for Muslims.
They ignore the fact that for 1,200 years in addition to the Jews and Christians Muslims hateand have hated Buddhists, Hindus, and all other religions; enough to slaughter them whenever theyget the chance.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 14, 2005 03:12 PM (R3FcZ)
4
Too true Rod. In the UK they expect Religious education to cover all religions including the evil koran. As a supply teacher in London I subverted this process by refusing to teach islam in any form and giving the kids the choice of art or football instead. Some of the retards in the UK education system grovel and kiss the arse of islam. They are the same people who get on their high horses about the nazis or even the conservative party, yet they defend the most evil group of people on the planet. There is even a bloody bank in the UK that no longer has "piggy banks" because it offends the dirty muslims. All true Brits should never give this bank any business again.. I think it's the midland bank but I may be wrong. Then there is the way that some folk are scared of Christmas because it may offend muslims...I say offend them. I could go on and on about this sort of thing; we live amongst traitors to our own beliefs and these are probably the worst sort of people. These people have no patriotism, self worth or pride in their own heritage and contribute nothing towards a well balanced and peaceful planet.
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 03:39 PM (JDzHB)
5
Jester,
We have the same problem here in the US, perhaps on a lesser scale, but political correctness is now taking over our education system as well. The only good thing about the US is the number of Christian and private schools, plus children are allowed to be home-schooled, which is the fastest growing segment.
The real problem in all this is the Leftists. They are responsible for all the problems you refer to, and if we are to solve our problems, we must confront the Left. That is the key to the solution of the problem.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 04:01 PM (rUyw4)
6
JJ I gave my kids a Barney video and my purple dinosaur friend kept on going on about happy kwanzaa and all these other festivities that have only become trendy in the last decade but he didn't mention Christmas once. So I know what you mean about political correctness in the US. CHRISTMAS rules! Amen
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 04:44 PM (JDzHB)
7
My kid is studying the states and capitals. After they tried to make it fun I took him aside and told him. I want each of these written down five times each. But dad you are so mean that's cruel and not fun at all. He made a 100 then they were all asking me how did you get him to do that. I was like I made him drill, repetition not complicated you write it over and over it sticks. The teacher was like oooh that's amazing. WTF? When to we stop entertaining and start educating. Nope not one fun thing about drilling or repetition, well except you score well on the test. The are so into keeping kidds attention and the wonder of learning. Back in my day the solution for ADHD was a red ass. Learned to concentrate PDQ. Oh but all that drilling and spanking is cruel. What's is even more cruel is graduating stupid.
Posted by: Howie at November 14, 2005 04:54 PM (D3+20)
8
Does anyone think the leaders of the "Religion of Peace" will answer Prager?
Posted by: Jo macDougal at November 14, 2005 04:57 PM (R3FcZ)
9
Islam is the embodiment of the evil St. Paul mentions when he dicusses the ongoing spiritual warfare that will continue until the end of time (i.e., JC's return).
Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at November 14, 2005 05:00 PM (YwuLF)
10
Howie - my dad took me up to the attic every Sat morning and made me repete the times tables when I was in the second grade. Wacked me if I got one wrong. He must have spent 100 hours in about 3 months drilling me. But By the time the second grade ended I was the top kid in math. Repitition works. Ask anyone who graduated Boot Camp.
an old exJarhead
12x12=144 see after 56 years I still have it!
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 14, 2005 05:22 PM (R3FcZ)
11
Jester - - In the UK my first comment makes better sense if MSM/DNC is just MSM. Who are the lefties anymore over there? Blair fights the War on Terror and he's Labour; which for 50 years I have thought of as left. I am confused about Brit politics.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 14, 2005 05:29 PM (R3FcZ)
12
Blair has a divided party. His ranks are filled with lefties as is the conservative right. His own party recently went against his proposal for 90 day detention without trial for suspected terrorists...a decision they will no doubt rue. People like Ken Livingston (Mayor of London) have turned London into a muslim city with their love of islam and Prince Charles is another traitor to his own heritage by making excuses for islam...despite his mother being a #1 AQ target. There is a minority of lefties in Britain that seem to get their own way by collaborating with muslims and helping muslims into positions of power. Cities like Bradford are now run by muslims who only look after their own interests and dictate on how British society should be run. Enoch Powell warned Britain that this would happen in the late 60s but he was ridiculed. Funny how the prophets of the right always get it right.
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 05:41 PM (JDzHB)
13
YBP! Where have you been? Dang. Don't tell me you have a real life outside the internet.
Posted by: Oyster at November 14, 2005 06:17 PM (YudAC)
14
Welcome back, YBP, from someone who, well, was informed that he had only been here a week. And that was last week.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)
15
Jester,
What do you think could solve the problems you have in the UK? Or are there any solutions? Just your thoughts.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 14, 2005 07:00 PM (rUyw4)
16
JJ, I admire the US for still having a strong sense of patriotism and pride in their flag. In the UK such things have eroded badly. Britain paid a heavy price for it's old empire as all those she colonised now want to live there. Some are welcome as they assimilate and contribute but alas the muslims from Pakistan and the middle east as well as Bengal are nothing but trouble. They want islam recognised as a national religion and their archiac ways and laws tolerated and respected. We fought the nazis and the japs for our nationhood and now it has been handed meekly to a force far worse in the guise of a religion (I am of course referring to islam). France is probably the beginning of a series of uprisings across Europe by these islamofascists.
We should have zero tolerance to minority views. Raise our flag in all schools, know our traditons and practice them in preference to all others and sing our national anthem with pride. Create laws that state to go against our traditions and culture is treasonal and invite those who wish to do so to leave our land forever or rot in our jails. A bullet to the head is all some of them are fit for.
Alas we are endangered of being overrun by muslim vermin if we don't make a stand soon. The average British person will rise up and take arms eventually if the muslims carry on with their demands. Maybe driving them out will be the only solution. It is one most of the native UK population would want if free speech on such matters was not punished by muslim instigated race-hate laws.
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 07:19 PM (JDzHB)
17
Jester: I weep for the UK. I have always considered it to be the bravest of nations. These stupid race-hate laws are cause more hate here in the US as well. The residents of England should be English. France, French (nasty little creatures). Germany, Germans, Japan, Japanese. Denmark, Danes. Etc. The world is screwed up if it is any other way. Multi-culturism is destroying national pride. Why, why do governments continue to listen to the idiots that say a country profits from immigration? Particularly, immigrants from countries that are all screwed up. Why are those countries screwed up? Because the inhabitants screwed it up. So we take these same people into our countries so they can screw up the non-screwed up countries. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.
There is only one solution to the muslim problem in Europe. Massive deportation. There is no other. Correct the problem.
My pride would never allow me to leave America. I would rather stay and fight for it. These people that leave their countries because of tyranny are cowards. They should stay and fight to make their homelands better. Instead they run to better countries to make them worse.
Also, anyone who doesn't like Christmas is an asshole. I am no longer a Christian. But life without Christmas, Man! No wonder the muslims are such freaks. Even Jews and agnostics (me) are happier at Christmas time. It's a season of joy and giving and caring. Stupid friggin ragheads. Piss on them.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 14, 2005 08:14 PM (ZaAd/)
18
"These people that leave their countries because of tyranny are cowards. They should stay and fight to make their homelands better. Instead they run to better countries to make them worse."
Indeed they are cowards. The trouble is they attempt to recreate the tyranny they run from in their new countries. You can't teach old dogs new tricks.
I will fight if I have to, the whole western society is at threat and sooner or later things will have to get really nasty. Deportation would be a peaceful solution but civil war is the more likely outcome if we are to drive such low-life from the western world.
Greyrooster, like you I am an agnostic but I believe in tradition and "white" culture which is often not recognised or marginalised by other races that feel so hard done by. These people don't realise that our culture evolved over thousands of years and has given us progress and good living standards which those feeble muslim nations could never achieve due to their backward thinking.
Posted by: Jester at November 14, 2005 09:45 PM (JDzHB)
19
Hurray for Western Civilization. JUST consider its music: Gregorian chant, Mozart, and Ella Fitzgerald. And Glenn Milller. And Beethoven. And John Philip Sousa. And Jim Reeves. Etc., etc.
Thanks for the greeting, Oyster and JJ!
Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at November 15, 2005 07:43 AM (YwuLF)
20
Yay it's YBP!!!!
Posted by: Howie at November 15, 2005 11:06 AM (D3+20)
21
YBP: You left out beer and whiskey. I thank the Christians for Christmas. I have a feeling Christmas will outlife the muslims.
Posted by: greyrooster at November 15, 2005 02:35 PM (ZaAd/)
22
Jester - Thanks for the information. UK or at least England sounds like it is moving towards France. Very sorry to hear that. Stiff upper lip and all that.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 15, 2005 05:11 PM (R3FcZ)
23
Rooster: Regarding Christmas, of that I have no doubt.
Okay, just consider Heinekin. And Budweiser. And Guinness. And Jack Daniels. And Wild Turkey. And Old Crow. And Maker's Mark. Etc., etc.
Good to hear from you.
YBP
Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at November 18, 2005 05:40 PM (tdhAh)
24
i met some guy muslims in sanfran cal, they gave the best blowjobs i have ever had, and they all swallow. praise allha
Posted by: kjsdfgh at November 29, 2005 12:55 PM (Drb1h)
25
Show me where the Quran says all the Rubbish that you point out.
Jihad means the internal and external struggle to do good. This can be giving money to the poor or sacrificing your life.
Jihad is not to be taken against unbelievers unless atacked.
According to the Quran Sabians, Christians and Jews are all people of the book. We must treat them equally and kindly.
AS for the other religous beleivers like the quran says;
'say to them, to you be your way and to me be mine'.
As for terrorism: you fail to remember its global, not islamic. There are Christian, Jewish, Black, White, Nationalistic, Communist etc terrorist groups.
S0 THINK BEFORE YOU ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST MUSLIMS.
IF YOU ARE DRIVEN TO HATE BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW SO CALLED 'MUSLIMS' THEN YOU HAVE FELL INTO THE TERORISTS TRAP.
C U ALL
:-)
Posted by: Amaad at January 03, 2006 04:34 PM (l8gSf)
582kb generated in CPU 0.2673, elapsed 0.3667 seconds.
136 queries taking 0.2712 seconds, 906 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
136 queries taking 0.2712 seconds, 906 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
