NationStates Jolt Archive

Two interesting stories today.

First up, the US is having to buy bullets from Taiwan because they are running out (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2005/January/theworld_January168.xml&section=theworld&col=)

Taiwan, of course, needs a quid-pro-quo - which turns out to be Hellfire Missiles. Now, first off how do people feel about having the troops armed with ammunition made by the very same people who supply most of the crap to Dollarama, and second, what will the other repercussions be given that the Hellfires are being bought specifically as a weapon to use against China. I'm betting that this is making for some interesting discussions behind closed doors in Beijing....

Second up, the US can't leave Iraq until it can secure itself. How will they do that if the police all start quiting? And how will that impact the election? (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/535ed41524908317ee7d685c61453c45.htm)


Iraqi police continue to leave their jobs, and some are even leaving the country, in response to violence and threats against them.

Insurgents have said policemen countrywide are targets due to their work with US troops and consider them to be traitors.

"We are doing our duties on the streets of this country afraid that at any time someone may hit us," Sgt Abbas Husseiny, a policeman responsible for a checkpoint in the Mansour district of the capital, Baghdad, told IRIN.

"Our lives are in the hands of people who want to bring disorder to Iraq. I'm getting my passport made so I can leave the country before the elections," Husseiny said.

Accurate figures are hard to confirm but local officials said hundreds of Iraqi policemen were killed last year in attacks by insurgents.

According to officials from the Ministry of Defence, at least two policemen are killed in an explosion or attack in the country daily.

According to Maj Salah al-Zeidan, police chief in the Karada district of the capital, many officers resigned after receiving threats from unknown sources and some decided to leave the country. "I know that it may surprise people, as policemen want to feel totally secure and are leaving the country. This is the reality in Iraq," he explained.

"The elections will be the worse days in this country, even with all the security preparations. We will be the first targets and I will leave the country next week for Syria. Unfortunately I had to quit my job for my family's safety," Kamal al-Rabia'a, a policeman working in the Hay Jamia'a district of Baghdad, told IRIN. "I don't want my children to live without a father and that is what could happen if I stay and do my job," he maintained.

Locals say the election is making the nation nervous and there are reports of families preparing to leave the country after school and university exams end on 15 January.

Parents said they were afraid and wanted to keep their children safe until the elections were over. "I will take my family outside Iraq and bring them back after the elections. They are the future of the country and I don't want to lose them due a stray bullet in the street," Hanoon Salem, a father of five, told IRIN.

But this situation poses another difficulty for the Iraqi authorities. "If people leave the country before the elections and policemen do the same, who is going to vote in the coming polls?" Kadham asked



Things just keep getting better and better....

They are running low on bullets because the US had gradually gotten out of the business of making bullets - the government arsenals have been shut down or moved to private hands.

Then, as part of the "peace dividend", the size of the armed forces scaled back, and the demand for bullets (and therefore contracts for) were scaled back.

Winchester has recently won a contract to provide 5.56mm ammunition. US civilian firms produce and expend more ammunition than the military every year. It's just that the military bullets are generally less effective and less lethal than the civilian rounds, so production has to change to produce the military rounds.

There are literally millions of civilian rounds currently available. And in some cases, some isolated units are using those rounds. But, technically, that's a violation of the Hague Convention, because those rounds are far more lethal.

LOL... ur joking, right? You don't actually believe that, do you? we buy bullets from other countries because it helps their economy and we're trying to support nations. It's like the US buying oil from the middle east. we have more than enough oil to get by for generations if we tap our resources, but the thing is that we can help others and still hold onto what we have should we ever really need it. it's that simple. to say the US is actually running out of bullets is foolhardy. the primary reason we're buying the ammo for iraq from taiwan is that the shipment costs are far cheaper.

They are running low on bullets because the US had gradually gotten out of the business of making bullets - the government arsenals have been shut down or moved to private hands.

Then, as part of the "peace dividend", the size of the armed forces scaled back, and the demand for bullets (and therefore contracts for) were scaled back.

Winchester has recently won a contract to provide 5.56mm ammunition. US civilian firms produce and expend more ammunition than the military every year. It's just that the military bullets are generally less effective and less lethal than the civilian rounds, so production has to change to produce the military rounds.

There are literally millions of civilian rounds currently available. And in some cases, some isolated units are using those rounds. But, technically, that's a violation of the Hague Convention, because those rounds are far more lethal.
Didn't Soviet AK 74 ammo have an airspace behind the tip to increase lethality? How was that legal under the Hague Convention?

So, what you are saying is that the US Administration started two wars without bothering to have anyone check the fundamentaly logistics out first, and took nearly two years to get around to noticing "hey.... we seem to be using these bullet thingies a whole lot more during a war...."


Yes, I understand that many civiallin bullets such as soft-nosed rounds cannot be used by the military. Still, the fact that it got let go until some units needed to get their hands on civillian rounds before any resupply contracts were made is assinine. The fact this has led to them being required to make a deal that will undoubtably require a diplomatic concession to China is doubly assinine.

It's all part of the poor planning that I believe is rampant in this administration.

So, what you are saying is that the US Administration started two wars without bothering to have anyone check the fundamentaly logistics out first, and took nearly two years to get around to noticing "hey.... we seem to be using these bullet thingies a whole lot more during a war...."


Yes, I understand that many civiallin bullets such as soft-nosed rounds cannot be used by the military. Still, the fact that it got let go until some units needed to get their hands on civillian rounds before any resupply contracts were made is assinine. The fact this has led to them being required to make a deal that will undoubtably require a diplomatic concession to China is doubly assinine.

It's all part of the poor planning that I believe is rampant in this administration.

Wars were anticipated to be the brief, short, violent things of the first Gulf War, or the beginning stages of the second war. Yes, there was a lack of vision that resulted in a) an insurgency, and b) the need for more bullets.

Logistics is not the simple thing you make it out to be. Neither is military strategy. Every, and I mean, every, commander at every level in every war has been shortsighted in some way, and especially in regards to logistics.

Poor planning occurs in any large organization, to one degree or another. We could say that the whole US vision of warfare as a short neat event (which was even the plan for Soviet conflict on the European continent - two weeks of conventional conflict followed by nuclear war) which was policy for DECADES was a bad idea.

Not just the vision of the Bush administration. But the vision of every US President since Eisenhower.

Groupthink, I believe, is the term for such things.

As for civilian ammunition, it has gone beyond the simple softpoint. Ammunition with Lexan inserts (Hornady TAP tactical police ammunition) and exotic metals (Blended Metal ammunition) were picked by certain units not because they couldn't get regular military ammunition, but because they wanted to put people down with a single torso hit.

Military ammunition is notorious today for being far less lethal than the variety used during the Vietnam War. It is far more stable, far harder, incredibly unlikely to deform, etc. It is even more "humane" than the 5.56mm variants produced by European companies that are trying very hard to make a "humane" round. It excels at penetrating light armor, but insurgents rarely wear expensive body armor, or ride around in light armored vehicles, so that's hardly a selling point. Our current ammunition performance weakness was highlighted during the Somalia debacle, where it took at least six torso hits to just slow someone down.

Hornady TAP and Blended Metal have a reputation for nearly instant kills on single shot torso hits in nearly all real-life shootings. In police use of Hornady TAP in the US, there were ZERO survivors in single shot shootings. No wounded. Sounds humane to me.

If you were in combat, and your life depended on it, which one would you carry? Carrying the current military ammunition means you'll either have to hit people in the head on the first time around, or you'll have to use a lot of bad language to impress the enemy.

Note that if our military had been using Hornady TAP, we wouldn't have any incidents involving the shooting of wounded insurgents. Because there wouldn't be any at all.

You guys really will look for ANYTHING to bitch about regarding the USA wont you? Why not go get a hobby or something?

LOL... ur joking, right? You don't actually believe that, do you? we buy bullets from other countries because it helps their economy and we're trying to support nations. It's like the US buying oil from the middle east. we have more than enough oil to get by for generations if we tap our resources, but the thing is that we can help others and still hold onto what we have should we ever really need it. it's that simple. to say the US is actually running out of bullets is foolhardy. the primary reason we're buying the ammo for iraq from taiwan is that the shipment costs are far cheaper.

No actually, the US military is very heavilly constrained by the Buy America Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) as to where it procures from. And purchasing from overseas for items that can be made domestically is considered very unusual. Citizens want their tax dollars spent at home for US jobs wherever possible.

But hey, I'm not the one saying that they are running low on ammo.

they are (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4044-2004Jul21.html)

The Army estimates that it will need 1.5 billion rounds of small ammunition this year for M-16s and other rifles, triple the amount produced in 2001. The primary U.S. military supplier is the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, a government-owned facility run by Alliant Techsystems Inc. It will manufacture 1.2 billion rounds this year. "To fill that gap, we had to do some things rather quickly," said Brig. Gen. Paul Izzo, the Army's program executive officer for ammunition.

Wars were anticipated to be the brief, short, violent things of the first Gulf War, or the beginning stages of the second war. Yes, there was a lack of vision that resulted in a) an insurgency, and b) the need for more bullets.

Logistics is not the simple thing you make it out to be. Neither is military strategy. Every, and I mean, every, commander at every level in every war has been shortsighted in some way, and especially in regards to logistics.

Poor planning occurs in any large organization, to one degree or another. We could say that the whole US vision of warfare as a short neat event (which was even the plan for Soviet conflict on the European continent - two weeks of conventional conflict followed by nuclear war) which was policy for DECADES was a bad idea.

Not just the vision of the Bush administration. But the vision of every US President since Eisenhower.

Groupthink, I believe, is the term for such things.

As for civilian ammunition, it has gone beyond the simple softpoint. Ammunition with Lexan inserts (Hornady TAP tactical police ammunition) and exotic metals (Blended Metal ammunition) were picked by certain units not because they couldn't get regular military ammunition, but because they wanted to put people down with a single torso hit.

Military ammunition is notorious today for being far less lethal than the variety used during the Vietnam War. It is far more stable, far harder, incredibly unlikely to deform, etc. It is even more "humane" than the 5.56mm variants produced by European companies that are trying very hard to make a "humane" round. It excels at penetrating light armor, but insurgents rarely wear expensive body armor, or ride around in light armored vehicles, so that's hardly a selling point. Our current ammunition performance weakness was highlighted during the Somalia debacle, where it took at least six torso hits to just slow someone down.

Hornady TAP and Blended Metal have a reputation for nearly instant kills on single shot torso hits in nearly all real-life shootings. In police use of Hornady TAP in the US, there were ZERO survivors in single shot shootings. No wounded. Sounds humane to me.

If you were in combat, and your life depended on it, which one would you carry? Carrying the current military ammunition means you'll either have to hit people in the head on the first time around, or you'll have to use a lot of bad language to impress the enemy.

Note that if our military had been using Hornady TAP, we wouldn't have any incidents involving the shooting of wounded insurgents. Because there wouldn't be any at all.


And no wounded civilians either...

Anyway - I'm not going to sidetrack into an argument on why the military chooses the rounds that they do.

We wouldn't need so much ammunition if the military were permitted to use the latest advances in civilian ammunition.

There would also be very few wounded insurgents, and probably no "shooting the wounded" scenarios.

Being killed instantly by a single shot is arguably more humane than being riddled with six or more ineffective bullets that pierce your body through and through without killing you.

Then would you acknowledge that the current logistical situation, and the US belief in short, sharp wars is not just the world view of the Bush administration, but the view of nearly every administration previous?

To say that it's only Bush that lacked foresight is unsupportable.

Then would you acknowledge that the current logistical situation, and the US belief in short, sharp wars is not just the world view of the Bush administration, but the view of nearly every administration previous?


Short, sharp wars like WWII? Korea? Vietnam?

No - I don't think that I will go along with that assessment. Nor will I equate a war to push back an invader to his own borders (Gulf I) with the invasion and occupation of a nation. Anyone who WOULD plan for them the same would be an idiot as there are very diferent requirements for achieving the ensuing peace..

To say that it's only Bush that lacked foresight is unsupportable.


But then again, I never said that did I. Indeed, I would tend to say that such details of supply fall into Rumsfeld's purview rather than GW's.


And btw - the lack of forsight from one does not excuse it in another.

Everyone in the US expected that Task Force Smith would be able to hold back North Korea - and they were wrong, and we ended up there for years.

As in the current situation, they had to ramp up production again for bullets - because after WWII, who needs that many bullets? But that took time. So should be castigate Truman for thinking that a battalion of US troops would be able to hold back the North Koreans?

It wasn't anticipated initially that we would have more than advisors in Vietnam. So should we decry JFK's lack of vision? Or better yet, accuse Johnson of being a Texas war monger who loves to kill Third World civilians because he can't think of a way to resolve the Vietnam conflict that was dropped in his lap?

I can point to a lack of vision in wartime for nearly every leader in history.

LOL... ur joking, right? You don't actually believe that, do you? we buy bullets from other countries because it helps their economy and we're trying to support nations. It's like the US buying oil from the middle east. we have more than enough oil to get by for generations if we tap our resources, but the thing is that we can help others and still hold onto what we have should we ever really need it. it's that simple. to say the US is actually running out of bullets is foolhardy. the primary reason we're buying the ammo for iraq from taiwan is that the shipment costs are far cheaper.
your kidding yourself, we dont have any resources big enough to hold us over for a decade

Things just keep getting better and better....
Yeah, unstable Iraq, unstable (in your mind) United States, must give you something to get up for in the morning, huh? :rolleyes:

EDIT:By the way, the shortage is also due to the use now of "green" bullets made of Tungsten, not lead. They have been slow to replace the stocks of lead with Tungsten.

your kidding yourself, we dont have any resources big enough to hold us over for a decade

Except for our rich resource of child-molesting, baby-dangling, crotch grabbers without noses. I think we have enough of that to hold us over for a lifetime.

We wouldn't need so much ammunition if the military were permitted to use the latest advances in civilian ammunition.

There would also be very few wounded insurgents, and probably no "shooting the wounded" scenarios.

Being killed instantly by a single shot is arguably more humane than being riddled with six or more ineffective bullets that pierce your body through and through without killing you.

Actually, I will respond to this.

First, the military adheres to the Hague conventions for one simple reason - self-interest. Yes, new advances would make their own forces more effective, but the flip-side is that they hope not to have to face the same in the field. If the military did not care about what rounds opposing armies would fire at them then they would equally abandon the tenents of Hague.

The notion you propose that low-surviveabilty rounds equate to instant death is also false. The fact that a bullet will blow a six-inch hole of your guts out through your spine will indeed kill you with that one round. However there is no guarantee that your passing will be all that quick or painless. In the head or the heart - sure. Anywhere else and it's still going to take you a while to die.



Indeed, the suggestion that it is more humane to be killed than wounded is rather interesting. Perhaps you should go tell that to any returning wounded vet.... that they would have been better off dead.

Yes, I understand that many civillian bullets such as soft-nosed rounds cannot be used by the military.
Am I understanding you correctly that civilians are allowed to use ammunition that's more deadly than the ones being used by the very ppl who are paid to protect them?
Does anyone else find this totally bizarre?
*Shakes head*

As to the other story, on the BBC website the other day, The head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad said that's there's estimated to be 200 000 insurgents in Iraq at present, with up to 40 000 being hard core fundamentalists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145585.stm
Slightly more than Rummsfield estimates of 'no more than 10 000', isn't it?
I like the comment:
These figures do not represent an insurgency. They represent a war.

Out of interest, this is another one of their recent stories:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4147705.stm
The Pentagon says that more than 10,000 US military personnel have been wounded in Iraq since the conflict began in March 2003.
Newly published figures show that more than 5,000 of the wounded have been unable to return to duty...More than 1,300 US troops have been killed.
That's a helluva lot, when you take into account that a majority of Soldiers there aren't on active duty. So for the ones that are, there's a high chance of being killed, maimed or wounded .

Am I understanding you correctly that civilians are allowed to use ammunition that's more deadly than the ones being used by the very ppl who are paid to protect them?
Does anyone else find this totally bizarre?
*Shakes head*



It was part and parcel of the same notion that leads to things like bans on chemical weapons. The idea that things that cause unneccessarily grievous wounds should not be used. If both sides follow these rules then the individual soldiers have a better chance of getting home.

So soft-nosed bullets and the like are banned under the Hague Conventions.

In civillian settings, the argument for soft-nosed bullets being used by the cops is that the flattening expends so much more energy (that is absorbed by the target - usually killing him) that a shot that goes through the target and into an innocent becomes unlikely. The downside, of course, is that if a cop misses the target and the bullet still hits a bystander, then that bystander is more likely to be dead than wounded.


Of course, from a pragmatic perspective it is probably generally better to kill a person than wound them when the inevitable lawsuit rolls around. You may have to pay up lost wages in both cases, but you don't get nailed with a lifetime of medical bills, pain, and suffering on top of it.

Civilian rounds (especially rifle rounds) are used by hunters.

To a hunter, a humane round is one that guarantees a kill, rather than a wounded animal that wanders off to die days later.

Therefore, the expanding rounds, and now the enhanced performance rounds which both expand AND penetrate deeply.

The military must follow the Hague Convention. So, nothing peculiarly effective - in fact, the less effective, the more in compliance you are perceived to be.

So, it's no surprise that civilian rounds are far more lethal.

That, and most civilian rifle rounds are far, far more powerful and long-ranged than most military rifle rounds.

That, and most civilian rifle rounds are far, far more powerful and long-ranged than most military rifle rounds.

I guess it's a bitch trying to shoot .30-06 in three round bursts?

Things just keep getting better and better....

This is sarcasm, yes? :headbang:

I guess it's a bitch trying to shoot .30-06 in three round bursts?
Say what? This is one strange thread! :rolleyes:

They are running low on bullets because the US had gradually gotten out of the business of making bullets - the government arsenals have been shut down or moved to private hands.

proof that capitalism just doesnt work

:rolleyes: proof that capitalism just doesnt work

proof that capitalism just doesnt work
maybe if the us didnt invade 20 countrys a week, you would have a better supply of bullets
:gundge: :gundge:

We wouldn't need so much ammunition if the military were permitted to use the latest advances in civilian ammunition.

There would also be very few wounded insurgents, and probably no "shooting the wounded" scenarios.

Being killed instantly by a single shot is arguably more humane than being riddled with six or more ineffective bullets that pierce your body through and through without killing you.

Didn't the Hague Convention (or whatever it was) dictate that militaries throughout the world must use full-metal-jacket bullets?

maybe if the us didnt invade 20 countrys a week, you would have a better supply of bullets
:gundge: :gundge:
What country are you in? I think we can fit you in next Tuesday.

Didn't the Hague Convention (or whatever it was) dictate that militaries throughout the world must use full-metal-jacket bullets?

Yes, the Hague Convention. Read back in the thread...

Say what? This is one strange thread! :rolleyes:
I was asking why the US sticks to 5.56mm rounds rather than using bigger bullets.

Didn't Soviet AK 74 ammo have an airspace behind the tip to increase lethality? How was that legal under the Hague Convention?The airspace was there to make the bullet more rear-heavy, which (among other things) makes prone to tumbling sooner when hitting a (semi-)fluid obstacle than many other bullet designs.

There is nothing in Hague conventions or other international conventions of warfare about small arm ammunition that is designed to tumble in humans. Indeed, just about all solid rifle bullets will at common engagement ranges, as long as they travel long enough in the human tissue. As far as small arms ammunition is concerned, the Hague conventions are all about deformation, incendiaries and explosives.

The notion you propose that low-surviveabilty rounds equate to instant death is also false. The fact that a bullet will blow a six-inch hole of your guts out through your spine will indeed kill you with that one round. However there is no guarantee that your passing will be all that quick or painless. In the head or the heart - sure. Anywhere else and it's still going to take you a while to die.If you get hit through the spine with just about anything, your passing will likely be very swift and painless. That's not very likely though. Limbs blown off, huge holes in the abdomen, etc. are all very survivable with current medical technology.

Before any "energy dump", "hydrostatic shock" or similar BS emerges, I suggest everyone interested in terminal ballistics visits these (http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm) two (http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/wounding.html) pages.

It is worth pointing out that in common engagement ranges out of 14.5" and longer barrels, US and NATO standard 5.56x45mm FMJ rounds often fragment, and they were in fact designed to do exactly this. You can find more information about the 5.56x45mm caliber and anything related than you can possibly use here (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm). The real $1,000,000 question is: Why isn't the US and NATO called out on this flagrant breach of the Hague conventions?

Even more hilarious is the fact that high-accuracy hollowpoint 7.62x51mm ammunition for US military sniper rifles was defended by claiming that it was less likely to deform and fragment on impact with humans than the current standard 5.56x45mm FMJ design, and this is why the 7.62x51mm HP ammunition shouldn't really count as a breach of the Hague conventions. Obviously it never crossed the minds of whoever were behind that project that the current standard 5.56x45mm FMJ design should count as a breach of the Hague conventions...

And yes, there certainly is a reason why most militaries moved away from full-power rifle cartridges to the 5.56x45mm, the 7.62x39mm, the 5.45x39mm, etc. post-WW2. Much of that has indeed got to do with the inability of a human being to handle a reasonably light full-power rifle in fully automatic or burst fire modes. It is equally true that there is a reason why at least the US military is now considering more powerful caliber possibilities, such as the 6.8x43mm Remington SPC, etc., which could be considered about halfway between 7.62x51mm (or .30-06) and 5.56x45mm in many respects.

Everyone in the US expected that Task Force Smith would be able to hold back North Korea - and they were wrong, and we ended up there for years.

As in the current situation, they had to ramp up production again for bullets - because after WWII, who needs that many bullets? But that took time. So should be castigate Truman for thinking that a battalion of US troops would be able to hold back the North Koreans?

It wasn't anticipated initially that we would have more than advisors in Vietnam. So should we decry JFK's lack of vision? Or better yet, accuse Johnson of being a Texas war monger who loves to kill Third World civilians because he can't think of a way to resolve the Vietnam conflict that was dropped in his lap?

I can point to a lack of vision in wartime for nearly every leader in history.



Well I think Johnson rather pushed it with the Gulf of Tonkin, and Truman showed lack of judgement by not pushing the damn French out of there in the first place. Our supersonic fighters of the time where all skinned in titanium and Vietnam had, (and has) large deposits. The only other place with sizable deposits was Soviet Russia. Our pullout of Vietnam closely mirrors our development of an alternative for titanium in supersonic fighters. Vietnam was a strategic resource war along with any other motives we might assign

I don't know why we thought we could win in Iraq. There are so many different groups of people that we can't possibly satisfy all of them. We were pretty much doomed from the start.

I guess Bush thought that once we went in and instilled democracy all the groups of people that had hated each other for generations would suddenly be best friends now that everyone could vote :( .

What are hellfire missiles when we sell Taiwan better weapons such as F-16s, Kidd class DDGs, and other stuff. I see nothing wrong with arming the ROC. I'd expect a liberal like you to support a democracy that has much better human rights records than the oppressive PRC. I think this isn't a bad thing if we allow a democracy to defend themselves from Imperialists in Beijing.

I don't know why we thought we could win in Iraq. There are so many different groups of people that we can't possibly satisfy all of them. We were pretty much doomed from the start.

I guess Bush thought that once we went in and instilled democracy all the groups of people that had hated each other for generations would suddenly be best friends now that everyone could vote :( .

Yeah he is kind of a dufuss isn't he. Iraq, talk about handing yourself a shit sandwich and pretending it's mom's apple pie.

The only solution is socialism...well actually communism would be easier to apply to the US.

The only solution is socialism...well actually communism would be easier to apply to the US.

I'll pass on the bread line goverment thank you.

The reason why we use .223 rounds (aka 5.56mm), aside from Geneva Convention regulations, is because of the overall performance of the round. .223 has far less kick, and has an overall decent range for the guns we use. When the military used other rifles, we had .308, .32 Magnum, .45 Colt (During WWII up until about 1985) and 30.06 and a few others. The M-60 used the .308 caliber. Try firing that standing up. No one is Rambo or the Terminator. The standard person would have a difficult time firing a fully automatic M1-Garand or M-60 type weapon without having to deploy it. Try clearing a building with a gun you have to deploy to effectively use the gun. It's simple mobility. Who says we have a shortage of bullets? I just went to Wal-Mart and saw a full aisle of munitions. .223, 12 gauge, .308, Remington, Wolf, Winchester, Federal, the list goes on. That's total BS.

The M-60 used the .308 caliber. Try firing that standing up.

You can fire it standing up, just not from the hip like some action movie star. You tuck it in tightly to your shoulder like an assault rifle and stick to the 3/7/10 bursts, if your strong you'll handle it.

Things just keep getting better and better....
Your enjoying this, aren't you?

Wouldn't surprise me if a massive Civil War breaks out within the nation, and you;ll be on your couch going "I live for moments like these"

Don't you say anything USEFUL? For example, rather than bagging on America, you can bag on cigarette smokers. You can bag on rapists. You can bag on child molesters.

But noooooooo....*rambles on*

The US should be making its own bullets. Buying from other nations is absurd, because a) it improves their armament industry, which sells to other nations as well, ones potentialy unfriendly that may have cold relationships with allies b) the money goes to other nations, when it can go to the home country c) a foreign aid fund can be directly handed to the nation, which can go directly into development projects. Supporting an industry just because there's a small change of spin-off effects in other nations is so naeve as to have a charm about it.

Your enjoying this, aren't you?

Wouldn't surprise me if a massive Civil War breaks out within the nation, and you;ll be on your couch going "I live for moments like these"

Don't you say anything USEFUL? For example, rather than bagging on America, you can bag on cigarette smokers. You can bag on rapists. You can bag on child molesters.

But noooooooo....*rambles on*
It gets his rocks off to see suffering, both in the US and around the world where the US is working to establish freedom and democracy. Pathetic.

The US should be making its own bullets. Buying from other nations is absurd, because a) it improves their armament industry, which sells to other nations as well, ones potentialy unfriendly that may have cold relationships with allies b) the money goes to other nations, when it can go to the home country c) a foreign aid fund can be directly handed to the nation, which can go directly into development projects. Supporting an industry just because there's a small change of spin-off effects in other nations is so naeve as to have a charm about it.
The ROC would not turn on us, we have a defense pact with them. They use US arms anyways since we are one of their top suppliers. If it helps the ROC's arms industry, then that is an advantage. More weapons for them to save themselves from China with.

The standard person would have a difficult time firing a fully automatic M1-Garand or M-60 type weapon without having to deploy it. Try clearing a building with a gun you have to deploy to effectively use the gun. It's simple mobility.


The M1-Garand isnt fully auto.


Who says we have a shortage of bullets? I just went to Wal-Mart and saw a full aisle of munitions. .223, 12 gauge, .308, Remington, Wolf, Winchester, Federal, the list goes on. That's total BS.


That full isle of ammo would not last long, and I dont think to many soldiers would be happy with 12 gauge ammo.

.32 MagnumWhat standard issue weapons of the US armed forces have been chambered in .32 Magnum? None that I've ever heard of, but my knowledge of the history of the US armed forces is admittedly weak.

As for firing machineguns chambered for full-power rifle cartridges from a standing unsupported position: you can certainly do it, it's just that your accuracy might suck. It's certainly very easy to just fire the weapon from the hip, and the recoil won't hurt you or make you lose balance, but your chances of hitting a human-sized target at ranges greater than 10 meters are rather slim.

From the shoulder, you're going to be plenty more accurate. Still, I doubt your hit percentage with anything but very short bursts at 50 meters against human-sized targets is going to be high.

Now, first off how do people feel about having the troops armed with ammunition made by the very same people who supply most of the crap to Dollarama,

hahahahaha. that had me laughing up a storm until it turned into a coughing fit. i need to make use of my cough syrup now.

From the shoulder, you're going to be plenty more accurate. Still, I doubt your hit percentage with anything but very short bursts at 50 meters against human-sized targets is going to be high.

Tis why even to this day some forces like tthe SEALs stick with the M-60 in a stripped down version, comming out to 12.5 pounds total without ammo. Not bad at all considering the firepower you can get, and remember a LMG is not about direct fire, it's a supression weapon allowing the other riflemen to fire and manuver closer to the enmy while it puts down supression on your enemy.

it's just that your accuracy might suck
Sorry, my intentions were that you CAN fire it, just not effectively. Hence my room clearing example. And about the M-1 Garand, I was saying it would be difficult to have a fully automatic one, not that there is one. The police, special forces and the "army" of the late 19th century- early 20th used the .32 as a sidearm. It was later replaced by other calibers such as the .45 because it was far too weak against foes.

Your enjoying this, aren't you?


No. It nauseates me constantly.


Wouldn't surprise me if a massive Civil War breaks out within the nation, and you;ll be on your couch going "I live for moments like these"

Don't you say anything USEFUL? For example, rather than bagging on America, you can bag on cigarette smokers. You can bag on rapists. You can bag on child molesters.

But noooooooo....*rambles on*

Right.

There is nothing USEFUL about keeping abreast of current affairs and noting when you feel that errors are made. Because the government would work sooooooooooooo much better if nobody cared enough to pay attention.


Perhaps you have tired of hearing people's issues with policy. That's YOUR problem. And yet you still read my threads, which is rather odd.


Here's a thought: If you don't deem discussion of political issues to be useful, perhaps a political message board is not the right place for you.

LOL... ur joking, right? You don't actually believe that, do you? we buy bullets from other countries because it helps their economy and we're trying to support nations. It's like the US buying oil from the middle east. we have more than enough oil to get by for generations if we tap our resources, but the thing is that we can help others and still hold onto what we have should we ever really need it. it's that simple. to say the US is actually running out of bullets is foolhardy. the primary reason we're buying the ammo for iraq from taiwan is that the shipment costs are far cheaper.

Can we say "denial?" You're asking us to believe we're deliberately pissing off China, a nuclear power and the only country on earth still capable of going toe-to-toe with us for an extended period of time (even if we would eventually win), because we're trying to support the economy of a country we do not recognize as existing? We've gotten to the point that soldiers are refusing orders to go on convoys because the vehicles aren't armored. I swear, some people are willing to deny the obvious so they can tell themselves the war is going well.

Your enjoying this, aren't you?

Wouldn't surprise me if a massive Civil War breaks out within the nation, and you;ll be on your couch going "I live for moments like these"

Don't you say anything USEFUL? For example, rather than bagging on America, you can bag on cigarette smokers. You can bag on rapists. You can bag on child molesters.

But noooooooo....*rambles on*

Ok, you're just turned 14 if I recall correctly? Zep is old enough to actually almost be your grandfather.. ok, does some math.. close.. but certainly probably older than your own father... so shhh. He knows what he's talking about, trust him... Swings shiny watch...lol

Ok, you're just turned 14 if I recall correctly? Zep is old enough to actually almost be your grandfather.. ok, does some math.. close.. but certainly probably older than your own father... so shhh. He knows what he's talking about, trust him... Swings shiny watch...lol
14 and a half for your information, need you feel the need to make an issue out of it.

I don't care how old Zep is. He can be 10. He can be 20. 30. 40. 60. 80. I don't give a crap. This is the internet, I will treat him with as much respect as anyone else. Just because he is your husband does not mean he will get special treatment. If I have an opinion about him, I get to voice it.

And for the record, after the results of the Nov election came in, I no longer have faith in those older than me. Nor for those who are as old as me. And definatly none in those younger than me.

And for the future, I don't treat you like some old lady because your God-knows-how-old-who-really-cares-anyway. So you have no right to treat me as some little kid because I am 14.

So you have no right to treat me as some little kid because I am 14.Well, you are a little kid, so treating you as one sort of comes naturally from people older than you.

He's a left wing bomb thrower, I ain't no kid and I got no problem saying it. If he's old then he should just accecpt the fact that the world is changeing and be happy he's not locked up in some retirement home.

No. It nauseates me constantly.



Right.

There is nothing USEFUL about keeping abreast of current affairs and noting when you feel that errors are made. Because the government would work sooooooooooooo much better if nobody cared enough to pay attention.


Perhaps you have tired of hearing people's issues with policy. That's YOUR problem. And yet you still read my threads, which is rather odd.


Here's a thought: If you don't deem discussion of political issues to be useful, perhaps a political message board is not the right place for you.

A more useful thing to do would be to actually educate your children and teach them how to be good, open-minded people. Rather than trying to corner a 14-yr old.


Seriously, you and Steph live together I assume. I've always wondered, do you share a computer?

There are literally millions of civilian rounds currently available. And in some cases, some isolated units are using those rounds. But, technically, that's a violation of the Hague Convention, because those rounds are far more lethal.


Didn't Soviet AK 74 ammo have an airspace behind the tip to increase lethality? How was that legal under the Hague Convention?


Civilian rounds are no more lethal than military rounds, the 5.56 remington cartrige (used in the M16, and M249 SAW) has a tiny airspace behind the tip to improve expansion, and a dimple in the tail of the bullet to induce instability of the bullet when striking a target. This instability can take two forms upon impact.

1. The bullet simply changes trajectory (Case in point, articles of a person being shot with a 5.56 military round, bullet entering right shoulder and travelling through the torso, halting behind left kidney.

2. The dimple induces a tumbling of the bullet, causing the slug to rapidly spin through the target, increasing damage. (case in point, military reports of enemy being shot in arm and bullet completely severing arm). a 5.56mm bullet, tearing a persons arm completely off.

A civilian round of the same caliber has neither of these features, as they are instead a solid lead core, sometimes coated with a copper layer (hence FMJ or Full Metal Jacket rounds).

The only time a civilian 5.56mm round would be considered more lethal than a military round is in the case of a hollow point round, where the bullet has be extricated in the nose, leaving a hollow, that greatly increases expansion of the bullet, and sometimes causing the bullet to fragment.

A standard 5.56 Civvie FMJ round would simply pass through its target, expanding slightly, creating little damage.

A standard 5.56 civvie hollowpoint would mushroom to the point where penetration into another person is very limited, these bullets are used purely for stopping power.

If you were to shoot someone running towards you with a FMJ round, they'd continue moving forwards.

Take the same person, and slam them in the chest with a 5.56 hollowpoint, they're going to stop in their tracks, and possibly move backwards.

Just my 2 cents, hoping to clear up any confusion concerning the lethality differences of civlian and military ammunition in the 5.56mm category.

There is nothing USEFUL about keeping abreast of current affairs and noting when you feel that errors are made. Because the government would work sooooooooooooo much better if nobody cared enough to pay attention.

There's a difference between keeping abreast of current affairs and grinding an axe. Not to say that you're horribly biased all the time. I just think that's what Colodia's trying to get at here.


Here's a thought: If you don't deem discussion of political issues to be useful, perhaps a political message board is not the right place for you.

Yes, I like that policy, too. Those that disagree with us or think our actions faulty need to be shown the door. Kind of the the NSUN...

Yes, I like that policy, too. Those that disagree with us or think our actions faulty need to be shown the door. Kind of the the NSUN...


Nope, I wouldn't complain if he disagreed with my opinion at all. Debate IS the purpose of this board. However he ignored the issue simply to launch a diatribe against the fact that I express my opinions on politics on a board devoted to politics, which seems rather counterproductive.

So I called him on it.

He wants debate on child molestors? Here's a thought - he can start his own damn thread on the subject. Don't come here simply to bitch about the subject matter that I chose for MY thread.

Fair enough?

A more useful thing to do would be to actually educate your children and teach them how to be good, open-minded people. Rather than trying to corner a 14-yr old.


Actually, the 14-year old came in here and stirred things up. What? You wanted to post to my thread but me not to respond?

Seriously, you and Steph live together I assume.

Oddly enough - being married and having kids - yes we do.

I've always wondered, do you share a computer?

Hell No! We promised to have and to hold, for richer and poorer.... but not to share bandwidth! lol.

hoping to clear up any confusion concerning the lethality differences of civlian and military ammunition in the 5.56mm category.Sticking to facts is better when trying to clear confusion.

Civilian rounds are no more lethal than military rounds, the 5.56 remington cartrige (used in the M16, and M249 SAW) has a tiny airspace behind the tip to improve expansion, and a dimple in the tail of the bullet to induce instability of the bullet when striking a target. This instability can take two forms upon impact.The tiny airspace behind the tip of the M855 5.56x45mm Ball bullet is certainly not there to improve expansion. It is there mostly because a steel penetrator works best when the point is not very sharp, so the fitting of the blunt steel penetrator and the sharp ogive jacket always leaves a slight air space. The jacket is rather thick in front of the steel penetrator, so that airspace is much smaller than one might think. You can see a diagram of the bullet here (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/images/m855.jpg).

There is no or an insignificant dimple in the tail of the bullet. If there is one, it has nothing to do with stability. I cannot fathom where this idea comes from, or why putting a dimple on the tail of the bullet would make it less stable -- it should, in fact, do the opposite, since it effectively makes the bullet less rear-heavy.

2. The dimple induces a tumbling of the bullet, causing the slug to rapidly spin through the target, increasing damage. (case in point, military reports of enemy being shot in arm and bullet completely severing arm). a 5.56mm bullet, tearing a persons arm completely off.Rifle bullets tend to tumble in humans because they are rear-heavy. They are rear-heavy because they are (sharp) ogive shapes, and in some situations because of other design features -- the significant air pocket in the standard Russian 5.45x39mm FMJ design, the less-dense steel penetrator in the M855 bullet, etc.

These features allow the 5.45x39mm (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-74%20545x39.jpg) and the M855 (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg) to tumble quite a bit faster than some others, such as the blunt, full lead core 7.62x39mm FMJ (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg) and the 7.62x51mm M80 FMJ (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg). Even the M882 9x19mm FMJ (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/9mm%20US%20M882.jpg) bullet does this, because of the ogive shape of its tip.

You did not mention the tendency of the M193 and M855 FMJ bullets to fragment when they tumble in tissue at velocities greater than 2700fps. You can read all about that in this article (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm) that I already linked earlier.

The only time a civilian 5.56mm round would be considered more lethal than a military round is in the case of a hollow point round, where the bullet has be extricated in the nose, leaving a hollow, that greatly increases expansion of the bullet, and sometimes causing the bullet to fragment.There are plenty of other ways to increase the expansion of a bullet than a hollow point design, and many of them have already been touched upon in this thread. I suggest you read, for example, through this article (http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html) (which, again, I already linked above) -- it goes through a number of different civilian rifle bullet designs.

A standard 5.56 Civvie FMJ round would simply pass through its target, expanding slightly, creating little damage.There is no inherent difference between a military and a civilian 5.56x45mm FMJ round. Both the M193 and M855 FMJ rounds are perfectly legal for a civilian to own. There is a metric bungload of information on 5.56x45mm FMJs on this site (http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm) -- you just can't link it often enough.

stopping powerStopping power indeed. (http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#momentum)

In case anyone is interested in the actual language of the Hague Convention:

The Hague Convention (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm)