NationStates Jolt Archive

About time. This took way too long.


www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/cbsnews_investigates/main1688223.shtml


This reporter's notebook was written by CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like so many investigative stories, this one started with a trickle of information — a phone call from a source who pointed us in the direction of a military firestorm over the so-called "stopping power" of the 5.56 mm bullet used by U.S. troops in their M-16 rifles on the ground in Iraq.

As it turns out, the debate dates back more than 40 years, ever since the 5.56 replaced the larger-caliber 7.62 mm bullet in the early days of the Vietnam War. Lately, however, given the nature of urban warfare in Iraq, reports from the field have raised new questions about an old bullet.

One particular episode immediately caught our eye. It involved a Special Forces raid in Ramadi in response to the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad back in August 2003. According to a soldier who was there, during a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven — count ‘em, seven — times in the torso by the 5.56, only to be brought down by a single shot to the head from a .45 caliber pistol. But before the insurgent died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven.

The man who brought that story to our attention was retired Marine Maj. Anthony Milavic, who's hardly shy in his anger over the 5.56.

"The lack of lethality of that bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," said Milavic, a veteran of two tours of duty in Vietnam.

From his home in Virginia, Milavic moderates an online discussion group where the 5.56, it turns out, is the source of a great deal of chatter and frustration among veterans and weapons experts. Many insist the 5.56 is better suited to shooting squirrels than the enemy; that close-quarter fighting in Iraq demands a bigger bullet. "A bullet that knocks the man down with one shot, and keeps him down" Milavic told me. "I call that knock-down power. I call that stopping power."

But a single sense of outrage, no matter how powerful, does not a story make. So senior producer Bert Rudman and I traveled to Southern California to interview a man who said he would literally show us what all the fuss was about. Bruce Jones is a mechanical engineer who helped design artillery, rifles and pistols for the Marines. In a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Los Angeles, Jones gave us a close-up look. First he fired the 5.56 into a block of glycerin designed to show what happens in the human body when a bullet rips through it. Then he fired the larger-caliber 7.62 into another block of glycerin. To the naked eye the "exit wounds" seemed similar, which is one reason I'm the TV correspondent and Jones is a mechanical genius (he's a card-carrying member of Mensa). In actuality, he told us, the "hole cavity is 50 percent or more larger." Sure enough, when our intrepid camera crew backlit the glycerin blocks, the difference between the "funnel path" of the 5.56 and the 7.62 was clearly evident. Pierre Sprey couldn’t have been less impressed when I told him what we had seen. A former Pentagon weapons expert, he championed the 5.56 to secretaries of state and presidents believing it both lethal and light. During our time together, he shook his head at the online debate sparked, he felt, by those who are far from expert in the field of testing and war. He believes the more bullets the better, and that soldiers carrying 300 rounds and firing on automatic don't compare to those carrying 100 and firing one big bullet at a time. "There is no such thing as a well-aimed shot in combat," said Sprey. "Combat is fought by scared 18-year-olds who haven't trained enough and are in places they've never seen before."

Well, I've been in enough places over time to know when it comes to investigative work there's no better path to follow than what we call "the paper trail." So off we went — eventually discovering a confidential report to Congress in which active Marine commanders complained about the 5.56 ("the most worthless round … torso shots not lethal") and two more internal reports based upon the Army's most extensive testing of the 5.56 since 1990.

The testing took place at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. In an initial interim report dated September 2004 the 5.56 ranked last in lethality out of three bullets tested. A second draft, dated March of this year, confirmed those rankings to a CBS producer who looked at the report. To top it off we found a story in a recent issue of Marine Corps Times magazine that was particularly enlightening. In it a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy AK-47s because their 7.62 bullets packed "more stopping power." In effect, they put down their own weapons in favor of those carried by the enemy because they felt more secure, especially in close-quarter battle.

We contacted both an arsenal and an Army spokesman at the Pentagon about our story, and both knocked it down. Initially, they called the reports and rankings "wrong … not statistically grounded" and "not the final version."

Then just before our story ran, the Army issued a press release stating it had completed a detailed study affirming the effectiveness of the 5.56. Surprisingly, at least to us (given the rankings and reports we had seen) the Army said their study actually was not a comparison of the 5.56 to any other caliber bullets in close-quarter fighting but rather the 5.56 to "commercially-available" rounds. The release pointed out the 5.56 did "have the same potential effectiveness in the hands of a Warfighter during the heat of battle."

You can read what you want in that last paragraph. I can tell you many of the people to whom we were talking expressed a great deal of displeasure over it. No matter what side you’re on, one thing is abundantly clear: with nearly 800,000 U.S. soldiers carrying M-16 rifles around the world, the cost of modifying those guns to fire any other bullet seems certain to spark a firestorm all its own.

Exactly right. The 5.56 doesn't have nearly the knockdown power it needs. We also need to replace the POS M9. An engineer friend of mine told me that one time a guy got froggy at a checkpoint, and it took 6 9mm rounds from about 10m to drop him. The 5.56 isn't quite so bad as that most of the time, but it's still less than optimal. I've said for years that the US should adopt a militarized version of the AR-10.

What about using the 7.63x39mm cartridge? Assuming decent mags could be made (C products mags aren't out yet, but their other made are reported to be excellent), you could even use the same AR lowers. Besides the mags, upgrading to 7.62x39mm would only need a rebarrel, a new bolt, and a new muzzle device.

An added benefit would be that the rifles would use the same ammo as the AK-47.

I say we should make a gun similar to the FN-SCAR for common use in the military. One that can switch between 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm. Someone is in close combat, a 3-4 minute change to the ak round. Out on the field, load up with some 7.62Nato.

I've heard of a 6.8 mm bullet being distributed to some Special Forces groups to try, along with a new reciever to make it useful.

Just hand out FN SCAR Rifles to everyone. They can fire pretty much anything, depending on the version. And most of the parts are probably interchangable.

That the M-16 in pretty much all its versions is sorta outdated shouldn't exactly be news...

What about using the 7.63x39mm cartridge? Assuming decent mags could be made (C products mags aren't out yet, but their other made are reported to be excellent), you could even use the same AR lowers. Besides the mags, upgrading to 7.62x39mm would only need a rebarrel, a new bolt, and a new muzzle device.

An added benefit would be that the rifles would use the same ammo as the AK-47.

The 7.62x39 isn't an optimal longer range cartridge-beyond 200 yards it's like using a wiffle ball. The 5.56 Has been used in Afghanistan to punch alqaeda out to 800 yards. The 6.8 retains MORE energy out to that distance, not to mention at closer ranges it dumps 60 percent more energy into a target, penetrates BETTER, and is al around better than the 7.62x39 or 5.56.

Exactly right. The 5.56 doesn't have nearly the knockdown power it needs. We also need to replace the POS M9. An engineer friend of mine told me that one time a guy got froggy at a checkpoint, and it took 6 9mm rounds from about 10m to drop him. The 5.56 isn't quite so bad as that most of the time, but it's still less than optimal. I've said for years that the US should adopt a militarized version of the AR-10.

The M16 is a good weapon, however they need to replace the gas impingement design with a piston operated one. Less crap thrown into the receiver, so it stays cleaner, and it's more reliable.

There is already talk of going back to the .45 or .40.

Exactly right. The 5.56 doesn't have nearly the knockdown power it needs. We also need to replace the POS M9. An engineer friend of mine told me that one time a guy got froggy at a checkpoint, and it took 6 9mm rounds from about 10m to drop him. The 5.56 isn't quite so bad as that most of the time, but it's still less than optimal. I've said for years that the US should adopt a militarized version of the AR-10.

That's actually in the works. They're bidding on going back to the .45ACP.

Just like people said when they went to the M9.

The M16 is a good weapon, however they need to replace the gas impingement design with a piston operated one. Less crap thrown into the receiver, so it stays cleaner, and it's more reliable.
Ding. The problem with the AR10 is that it fouls the gas system wayyyy too quickly to use in a serious firefight.

I think it would be more productive if soldiers became better shots.

Speaking from experience, most Army non-infantry types are nearly helpless with a rifle in their hands. The level of marksmanship is lower than the Marine Corps.

It doesn't matter if you're carrying a huge weapon if all you're going to do is miss a lot.

I think it would be more productive if soldiers became better shots.

Speaking from experience, most Army non-infantry types are nearly helpless with a rifle in their hands. The level of marksmanship is lower than the Marine Corps.

It doesn't matter if you're carrying a huge weapon if all you're going to do is miss a lot.

I can back that up. I just got back from AT a few weeks ago. Our mission was to improve combat capabilities of support troops. It was a sad experience. We did get them to improve somewhat though.

The M16 is a good weapon, however they need to replace the gas impingement design with a piston operated one. Less crap thrown into the receiver, so it stays cleaner, and it's more reliable.

There is already talk of going back to the .45 or .40.

I agree, the M16 family are good weapons, despite their poor reputation. As long as you are diligent in maintaining it, it'll take care of you. Although I would certainly welcome the changes you suggest. While I'm rather confident with the 16 on semi (the 3 round burst setting is so very worthless), a bit more mechanical reliability certainly wouldn't hurt things. The 16 itself is solid, but it's round is of course, less than perfect.

I'm rather interested in this 6.8mm round you guys are talking about. How does it stack up against the 7.62 NATO?

I can back that up. I just got back from AT a few weeks ago. Our mission was to improve combat capabilities of support troops. It was a sad experience. We did get them to improve somewhat though.

I feel your pain. Back in '03, prior to going to Iraq we had to train these Nebraska Guard transportation guys. I'm still mystified as to how someone loses the 3 rings on the bolt. Or how you can smash your front sight post completely flat.

ahem... CBS missed one thing...

Problem Solved

The 6.8mm has been tested, approved by all NATO countries and will soon be distributed to all U.S. soldiers (along with he appropriate uppers/lowers to make it work)

The rounds introduction to soldiers was delayed when the U.S. decided not to go with the M-8 (otherwise, a good choice.)

The 6.8 stack up well against he 7.62, espescially considering the extra ammo you can carry for the same weight. And it has pretty mucht he same trajectory as the 5.56 so we don't have to teach our soldiers how to shoot again.

I just wish they'd make up their minds. The British suggested a similar round 50 years ago and they even had a real nice gun lined up to fire it (back when we could still make guns), but the Americans decided it was too under powered so NATO opted for 7.62. Then they realised that 7.62 was too powerful and so we all went to 5.56. Now 5.56 is too under powered so it's back to what the British suggested 50 years ago.

I just wish they'd make up their minds. The British suggested a similar round 50 years ago and they even had a real nice gun lined up to fire it (back when we could still make guns), but the Americans decided it was too under powered so NATO opted for 7.62. Then they realised that 7.62 was too powerful and so we all went to 5.56. Now 5.56 is too under powered so it's back to what the British suggested 50 years ago.

I know.....they had it right.......

If that were to happen we'd still have the 3006 around. Cool...

Ding. The problem with the AR10 is that it fouls the gas system wayyyy too quickly to use in a serious firefight.

Yep. The AR-series basicaly craps where it eats from. Not good.

ahem... CBS missed one thing...

Problem Solved

The 6.8mm has been tested, approved by all NATO countries and will soon be distributed to all U.S. soldiers (along with he appropriate uppers/lowers to make it work)

The rounds introduction to soldiers was delayed when the U.S. decided not to go with the M-8 (otherwise, a good choice.)

The 6.8 stack up well against he 7.62, espescially considering the extra ammo you can carry for the same weight. And it has pretty mucht he same trajectory as the 5.56 so we don't have to teach our soldiers how to shoot again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Major Robert E. Berg
US Army Ordnance and Aerospace Engineer

The 5.56mm NATO, the ammunition of choice for the U.S. military for decades, may have finally had its day. The reason? Stopping power. In conflicts around the globe, it is becoming apparent that this venerable bullet may not have enough oompf to take down an enemy -- and keep him down.

The need to increase ammunition lethality is a pressing issue. For evidence, look no further than the Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03, published by the United States Army Infantry Center, Directorate for Combat Developments, Small Arms Division. The report made the following recommendation:

Advantages Over the 5.56 NATO

Lethality is the first advantage. The 6.8 SPC edges both the 6.5 Grendel and the 5.56 NATO at short range against unprotected personnel. However, against light armor protected personnel, the 6.5 Grendel has an edge over the 6.8 SPC. Both are an improvement upon the 5.56. (Lethality at long range has not been tested.) For long-range engagements, both cartridges can be compared to the 7.62 NATO, currently in use by the U.S. military.

Killing power at longer ranges can be estimated using computerized ballistics programs. As seen in the chart below, the 6.5 Grendel has a overwhelming advantage at long rage, with 831 ft lbs of energy, even when compared to its larger counterpart, the 7.62 NATO, with 745 ft lbs of energy.


Energy Comparison at 600 Meters
5.56 NATO 6.8 SPC 6.5 Grendel 7.62 NATO
Energy (ft lbs) 308 440 831 745
Bullet (gr) 77 115 144 147

At Shootout 2004 held at Blackwater Training Center in Moyock, NC, the 6.5 Grendel was tested against armored glass panels. The cartridge succeeded in penetrating new 1.575" VistaSteel armored glass with, even without armor-piercing ammunition. The Grendel with actual armor-piercing ammunition should be a great performer for that purpose.


6.8 Remington SPC (left) alongside the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. (Photo: Gunblast.com)

Weight and Recoil

When it comes to weight and recoil, the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are at a slight disadvantage. The 5.56 NATO cartridges weigh 9.0 pounds per 300 rounds. The two new rounds weigh 28 percent more than 5.56mm. In comparison, 7.62 weighs 53 percent to 66 percent more than 5.56. However, recoil is only slightly higher than the 5.56 despite the weight difference, and about half that of 7.62 NATO.


Comparing the weight and recoil disadvantages to the 5.56mm, something else becomes apparent. The 6.5 Grendel delivers similar energy to the 7.62mm NATO yet has a significant advantage in weight and recoil. Based on the military's original move to the 5.56 for weight savings, the 6.5 Grendel appears to be an excellent alternative to the 7.62 as well.

I have spoken with Black Hawk and Chinook pilots on the subject of door gunners using the M60 with 7.62 ammunition. I have also fired the M60 from the open rear of a Chinook in Iraq. There is noticeable trajectory change in these rounds -- you can watch the tracers arc toward the ground. The change in trajectory is partly due to the long range and partly due to wind effect of rotor wash and forward speed. We agreed that a bullet less susceptible to wind drift and having less long-range drop would have an advantage. Long tracer life is also an advantage as the tracers are the only way to target in this situation. The 6.5 Grendel, with its long high BC bullets, offers all the advantages of longer tracer burn distance, less drop, and less wind drift.

The 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel seem like acceptable substitutes for the 5.56 NATO to increase killing power with only slight increases in weight and recoil. Surprisingly, the 6.5 Grendel also has an advantage over the 7.62mm NATO in that it retains its long-range energy in addition to having decreased weight and recoil. If the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, which have long been the workhorses of the U.S. military, have finally had their day, the Remington 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel are excellent alternatives.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001166.html

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/remington_0303/

Another shameless bump for the 6.8-It's MADE for automatic weapons. The case is wider, eleminating the problems of having too small a cartridge making it harder for the gun to 'grab' the cartridge, case head is STRONGER and thicker than the 5.56, BETTER ballistics compared to the 5.56...
I could go on.

I know.....they had it right.......

If that were to happen we'd still have the 3006 around. Cool...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The .280 wasn't just a slight tweak of an older round that the British were determined to stick to at all costs, like the 7.62 was, it was a brand new super-dooper design accommodating all the lessons learned from WWII about automatic fire and weight and whatnot, which just happened to have similar properties to what the Americans are now coming to see as the ideal assault rifle round.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The .280 wasn't just a slight tweak of an older round that the British were determined to stick to at all costs, like the 7.62 was, it was a brand new super-dooper design accommodating all the lessons learned from WWII about automatic fire and weight and whatnot, which just happened to have similar properties to what the Americans are now coming to see as the ideal assault rifle round.

Had we'd adopted the .280, we'd probably still have the 3006 around as a medium machine gun, just as the 7.62x51 is still around for Machine guns and sniper rifles, while the 5.56 is reserved for infantry weapons.

Had we'd adopted the .280, we'd probably still have the 3006 around as a medium machine gun, just as the 7.62x51 is still around for Machine guns and sniper rifles, while the 5.56 is reserved for infantry weapons.
Ah OK. Didn't understand what you meant.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The .280 wasn't just a slight tweak of an older round that the British were determined to stick to at all costs, like the 7.62 was, it was a brand new super-dooper design accommodating all the lessons learned from WWII about automatic fire and weight and whatnot, which just happened to have similar properties to what the Americans are now coming to see as the ideal assault rifle round.

Even the British arent dumb enough to not tweak cartridges

Another which very nearly saw service was the British EM2 bullpup rifle, initially chambered for a new 7x43 cartridge (later slightly modified as the .280/30) which fired its 8.4g bullet at 730 m/s, for a muzzle energy of 2,240 joules.

.....

A range of “optimum solutions” for ballistics at different calibres was produced. These resulted in muzzle energies ranging from 825 joules in 4.5mm to 2,470j in 7mm. More work led to a preferred solution; a 6.25mm calibre with a bullet of 6.48g at 817 m/s, for a muzzle energy of 2,160 joules. The old 7mm EM2 case was necked down to 6.25mm for live firing experiments, although had the calibre been adopted a new cartridge would probably have been designed.

http://www.65grendel.com/65g_arammo.htm

Even the British arent dumb enough to not tweak cartridges

I didn't mean actually physically tweak the individual cartidges, I meant adopting a new round very similar to the last one so you don't have to modify your guns too much to fire it, or change mindset.

The 6.8mm has been tested, approved by all NATO countries and will soon be distributed to all U.S. soldiers (along with he appropriate uppers/lowers to make it work)
So will current generation assault rifles (M-16, FAMAS, SA80, Steyr AUG, G36) be able to fire the new thing? Aren't those all sorta made for the 5.56 NATO ammunition?

Pardon my ignorance, but guns usually aren't my thing.

So will current generation assault rifles (M-16, FAMAS, SA80, Steyr AUG, G36) be able to fire the new thing? Aren't those all sorta made for the 5.56 NATO ammunition?

Pardon my ignorance, but guns usually aren't my thing.

However, recent reports indicate that the US SOCOM is testing a more powerful cartridge designed to fit in the M16 action. This is the 6.8x43 Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) which fires a 115-grain bullet at 2,650 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel (7.45g at 808 m/s = 2,430j); very similar to the “ideal” 6.85mm listed above. The cartridge case is based on the old .30 Remington commercial round, with a larger diameter than the 5.56x45 to increase the case capacity. This round develops 55% more muzzle energy than the 62-grain SS109/M855 loading at the muzzle, rising to 84% better at 550m due to its superior ballistic coefficient. Even standard 5.56mm magazines can be used, with some modifications to the lips and follower and with capacity reduced from 30 to 25 rounds. If this is adopted for US Special Forces and proves successful, then it stands a chance of being used more widely. This is the most promising development in military rifle ammunition for about half a century, and clearly has the potential to replace both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 rounds.

So, what, the military wants more money to change out all their shitty weapons? Too fucking bad. We’ve got a city destroyed by a hurricane and thirty million Americans without healthcare insurance. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for a bunch of men who polls show are not only for the war, but support Bush. Them not coming home may be a good thing.

actually, the M-16 is relatively easy to chage caliber. The upper and Lower recievers are quite inxpensive, only the barrel would be pricey. I Support the change, but think we could (and should) cut costs in other ways, espescially eliminating pork-barrel spending ont he military.

However, recent reports indicate that the US SOCOM is testing a more powerful cartridge designed to fit in the M16 action. This is the 6.8x43 Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) which fires a 115-grain bullet at 2,650 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel (7.45g at 808 m/s = 2,430j); very similar to the “ideal” 6.85mm listed above. The cartridge case is based on the old .30 Remington commercial round, with a larger diameter than the 5.56x45 to increase the case capacity. This round develops 55% more muzzle energy than the 62-grain SS109/M855 loading at the muzzle, rising to 84% better at 550m due to its superior ballistic coefficient. Even standard 5.56mm magazines can be used, with some modifications to the lips and follower and with capacity reduced from 30 to 25 rounds. If this is adopted for US Special Forces and proves successful, then it stands a chance of being used more widely. This is the most promising development in military rifle ammunition for about half a century, and clearly has the potential to replace both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 rounds.

The standard m16 series magazines don't work 100%. Barret makes mags for this gun that hold 28 rounds. They work perfectly, as do ALL things made by barret.

Nothing will replace the 7.62x51 in services. It still packs more power than the 6.8. Although logistics would be easier, the need is still there for it in sniper rifles and medium machine guns.

So will current generation assault rifles (M-16, FAMAS, SA80, Steyr AUG, G36) be able to fire the new thing? Aren't those all sorta made for the 5.56 NATO ammunition?

Pardon my ignorance, but guns usually aren't my thing.

The aug? Yes, it will work. You can convert an AUG to 6.8 by changing the bolt, barrel, and magazine. Sa80? Famas? G36? No clue but if you can change the barrel and bolt on any of those you probably could. The germans COULD whip out a G37 or 6.8spc equivelant VERY quickly if demand were high.

actually, the M-16 is relatively easy to chage caliber. The upper and Lower recievers are quite inxpensive, only the barrel would be pricey. I Support the change, but think we could (and should) cut costs in other ways, espescially eliminating pork-barrel spending ont he military.

Barret firearms (Maker of the BEST .50 cal sniper rifles) can make te m468, which is an AR15 shooting 6.8 for under 2k$ a peice. PRICEY, or you can just get the upper for around 1k$.

So, what, the military wants more money to change out all their shitty weapons? Too fucking bad. We’ve got a city destroyed by a hurricane and thirty million Americans without healthcare insurance. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for a bunch of men who polls show are not only for the war, but support Bush. Them not coming home may be a good thing.

Go pool some money with your liberal peacenik friends and take care of NO and the uninsured people. Don't use my money.

Military> Uninsured people/NO. NO is being rebuilt, unfortunately. The uninsured people are fine.

And yes, if the 6.8SPC is really pushed by the military and some congressman/senators is can and will be pushed by Bush. You can count on him to give it to us...

An M-16 upper is cheaper (mil price, not civie price, civie's gots to pay taxes and fees and crap) by far than 1k for switching to the m468.

Also, you're M468 is pretty, but it has some serious flaws. One, its too heavy. Two, it's too expensive. and Three, it claims to fix all of the M-16's problems, but it still uses direct Gas action, rather than a G-36 style short stroke, which would allow the M-16 to finally live up to its bygone reputation as a jamless wonder.

And all urrent generation NATO firearm can be easily converted to 6.8

Finally, Congress has already spoken... the 6.8SPC was approvedmonths ago, when we were still considering the M-8 (A terrible abortion of a weapon)

...the M-8 (A terrible abortion of a weapon)
How come? What's so bad about it?

You see, I'd be interested to learn how to shoot, but this is not the US, and just walking into a store for a gun isn't that easy. So I'm a bit of a ignoramus in this field.

Go pool some money with your liberal peacenik friends and take care of NO and the uninsured people. Don't use my money.
And don't use my money for the military.
Oh and sorry, but blowing up brown people who live in oil rich countries is not a better use of money than preventing our nation's county hospitals from going bankrupt.

And don't use my money for the military.
Oh and sorry, but blowing up brown people who live in oil rich countries is not a better use of money than preventing our nation's county hospitals from going bankrupt.

And I don't want my money used for the SS system, socialist welfare, bailing out crackheads, or paying for illegal's childrens schooling. Or bailing out a bankrupt hospital. I'd much rather it be used for useful things, such as replacing the m16, getting Zarqawi, bombing insurgents, etc. DM is mucho happy this week with the news of Zarqawi and the windfall of that.

Not to mention DM made a ton of money in his first week of work.

How come? What's so bad about it?

You see, I'd be interested to learn how to shoot, but this is not the US, and just walking into a store for a gun isn't that easy. So I'm a bit of a ignoramus in this field.

NL if you are in the south US I'll show you how to operate some auto rifles...free.

NL if you are in the south US...
Yeah, right. :D

snip

Go pool some money with your liberal peacenik friends and take care of NO and the uninsured people. Don't use my money.

snip.
Thats cute you think he is "Liberal" Just because he does not support the millitary lol

You must be really brainwashed by the 2 party system

Yeah, right. :D

I know.....

NL if you ever leave Australia or germany I will be EEKED. :eek: