In the begin of playing this Twelve Sky Online game, I have no 12sky money to buy equipment. I always adnire other player's equipment is very good and strong. At that time, I have had a few friends.

Posted by: 12sky money at August 9, 2008 02:33 AM

After playing game I always write down my feelings of this game to share with everyone. Now I was playing this Shaiya gold game and want to write a article about the Shaiya game.

Posted by: Shaiya gold at August 9, 2008 02:32 AM

His rank has been also getting higher and higher, however her rank actually still paused in there, because she wanted to play all the time, did not like practicing the level and made archlord online Gold.

Posted by: archlord online Gold at August 8, 2008 08:16 PM

I started to play cronous in college. At that time the cronous was not updated, and had little cronous money.

Posted by: cronous money at August 8, 2008 08:13 PM

Our island adventure, hope for a better, as if the joy of childhood when the growth to continue in pursuit of that future~ can step by step, the development of advanced, it, of our time, the motherland Time, the world's time, gradually the past, our childhood memory of ~~~ happy time! We have to remember that to purchase maple mesos, to facilitate our task to do!

Posted by: maple mesos at August 8, 2008 03:49 AM

Afterward, in our hard work, I accumulated finally diligently suffices the eve online isk to buy my first “crow” number ship.

Posted by: eve online isk at August 6, 2008 01:19 AM

Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.

Posted by: buy dofus kamas at August 6, 2008 01:16 AM

Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.

Posted by: buy dofus kamas at August 6, 2008 01:13 AM

Fencing: in this game, players have to learn how to actively Pinqiang for “initiative.” You can buy Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold.Fundamentally speaking, if you want to win, you must learn to control the situation

Posted by: Pirates of the Burning Sea Gold at August 5, 2008 07:46 PM

From novice to play is not too difficult, mainly Liandao a bit high, we should sell what ah, we should start to buy what the point, of course, has often been Qiangguai，Then we have no choice but to buy mesos, can also buy cheap mesos.

Posted by: mesos at August 5, 2008 07:44 PM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 08:27 PM

The game is the only hobby of him. He would like to give up, in all of us comfort and encouragement. He decided to join us to play the new mountain, he was still playing knife, I also playing a doctor, and we all give him a little Scions of Fate money. He touched me most is that I give up a 93 levels, as he went to mountain play.

Posted by: Scions Of Fate money at August 2, 2008 01:51 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:17 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 14, 2008 08:24 PM

Response comments below [in brackets].

But who’s short on time?

[Troops in the field.]

the D.o.D. is asking its simple soldiers to make their own experiments and ammunition improvements NOW AND WITH A “DREMEL” before entering life-or-death combat?

[To the best of my knowledge, DoD doesn't sponsor this webring. I am a civilian. DoD has made no such suggestion.]

Well, if that isn’t a teeth-grinding confession that the 5,56mm calibre is such a (no-)hit that it needs to be complemented with machine-cannons ( chain guns! ) and grenade-launchers…

[I wouldn't call it a "teeth-grinding confession." It's a simple statement of fact. No single caliber of small arm, or single piece of equipment, can take on all the mission requirements of the battlespace.]

Do you happen to know too if EXPLOSIVE bullets are permitted in a war? I mean: For infantry weapons?

[I don't know for sure. IIRC, explosive and incendiary shells are theoretically prohibited against personnel, but permitted against the equipment they operate or carry. As a practical matter, explosive shells are used against personnel all the time.]

assault rifle ammunition, especially of the 5,56mm calibre, loses any accuracy beyond 300 – 400 meters ( in case of doubt, ask the first rifle hunter you meet )

[This is true of most military issue and commercial 5.56mm ammo. There are special loads, such as the Mk. 262, Mod. 0 or 1, that are accurate past 600 meters.]

Posted by: Bob Ehling at March 5, 2007 04:44 PM

To the poster Bob Ehling:

Thanks for your answer. Just three or four insignificant remarks:

1) “Issuing new gear isn't "simple". Field expedients are. Certifying new gear takes years; testing a field expedient doesn't.”

But who’s short on time? I mean: The 5,56mm calibre was already introduced in the middle 1960’s ( !!! ) , when the U.S. Army finally caught up with the whole assault rifle concept ( at least officially. The M14 and other ArmaLite experiments already came out before of that, I know I know ) and wholeheartedly adopted the 5,56mm calibre as its standard infantry calibre, thus blowing N.A.T.O. standardization ( 7,62mm and the British .280, short cartridge ) straight into the weeds, but the D.o.D. is asking its simple soldiers to make their own experiments and ammunition improvements NOW AND WITH A “DREMEL” before entering life-or-death combat?!
Here in Europe we call that mildly “putting the cart before the horse”!
Wouldn’t it be a little bit more logical to evaluate the 5,56mm calibre first and THOROUGHLY , then chose it and ONLY try to find one or two suitable replacements ( for example the 6,5mm and 6,8mm calibres, as Mr. Byron Skinner said ) afterwards, if the original premises that got the 5,56mm calibre elected CHANGED ?

I almost pity the authors who want to write books on U.S. American calibres!

2) “My point was, DoD is in the process of issuing the Mk. 255, Mod. 0 to fix some of the 5.56mm's shortcomings.” … “If that doesn't work either, then they should pour 7.62mm, 25mm, 40mm, etc., etc. on target until it's no longer a threat.”

Well, if that isn’t a teeth-grinding confession that the 5,56mm calibre is such a (no-)hit that it needs to be complemented with machine-cannons ( chain guns! ) and grenade-launchers… How about a further calibre reduction?
Even Mr. Byron Skinner said: “It's the ammo baby. For the weight of 100 rds. of 7.62x51mm NATO a rifleman can carry nearly 300 rds. of 5.56x49mm NATO and current Infantry tactics use the spray and pray at targets around a 150 meters or less.” What next, if this “logic” prevails? Ten times more 3mm calibre ammo? A hundred times more thumbtacks? And can you even imagine the incredible fire rates that suddenly become possible then?
Why not invading, occupying and patrolling countries exclusively with unarmed ( naked? ) forward air controllers? That’s perfectly O.K. with me, as long as the U.S.A. don’t try to standardize this fashion N.A.T.O.-wide too!

3) “IIRC, the applicable Geneva Accord only prohibits bullets that…xyz”

Why do we never hear what the humanitarian lobby has to say about landmines ( until only a few years ago – who / which industry profited most with the covered-up assassination of the former international mine-ban promoter Lady Di? ) and about artillery shell fragments? According to these peaceniks it is perfectly acceptable to have your head taken off by a flying shard of steel, but “completely unacceptable” to have the back of it removed by a Dum-Dum bullet!
( How about prohibiting nuclear weapons? )

By the way: Do you happen to know too if EXPLOSIVE bullets are permitted in a war? I mean: For infantry weapons? ( Land vehicles, planes and helicopters can use them in their machine-guns and machine-cannons, for example as the famous “AP, explosive” bullets, even against soldiers )

4) “Yes, that's why you want two bullets that match ballistically”

THAT SHOULD be the least of your concerns! Since assault rifle ammunition, especially of the 5,56mm calibre, loses any accuracy beyond 300 – 400 meters ( in case of doubt, ask the first rifle hunter you meet ) and the average engagement distance during World War Two was only 75 meters too, according to an U.S. American post-War study ( hence the tumbling calibres! ) I sometimes wonder if an assault rifle needs anything more than an open notch ‘battle sight’ for firing across the street… Don’t forget that the basic concept of automatic fire IS NOT , but IMPLIES ALMOST THE OPPOSITE of that archaic, long-forgotten art and virtue formerly called “aiming”!
Just one clue: Why does no one in this entire forum, not even the well-informed Mr. Byron Skinner, ever mention the consistency of the bullets ( = the round-to-round spread of speeds which is as important for accuracy as velocity itself ) of assault rifle ammunition so far?! Could it be that the assault rifles’ ( lethal ) ranges are far too short for consistency to have any effect on their trajectories? Like maybe one fifth of that of the World War One rifles ( whose any hits - from .303 calibre to .60 calibre firing bullets from ~ 147 grains to ~ 580 grains with 3.000 Joule to 17.000 Joule - would also have killed ELEPHANTS as well ) ?
Yeah, light ammunition really made “great strides forward” since then…!

And to the poster Earl:

Earl, thanks for your link! It is very good indeed, very detailed, but in my personal opinion it emphasizes too much on the ammunition and too little ( at all? ) on mechanics, for example on breech evolution / history - which was / still is the real breakthrough in all automatic weapons. Nevertheless I also recommend it to everybody to read, at least to refresh our basic knowledge of the evolution of military rifle ammunition . Here it is again:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

And here a gift to everybody also from me:
A relatively recent report about weapons & tactics of friend & foe in Iraq, originally written by a U.S. Marine, then sent to the C.I.A. in Germany and then passed back again to the Army Intelligence in Iraq and on to the U.S.A. .

http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/perspective_-_iraq.htm ( Just scroll down the page a little bit: This long and probably still very actual comparison of technology and tactics starts only with the title “On the Scene Report from Iraq - 31 Oct 2006” )

As an American poster said about this Web-site: “This report contains so much information and facts that the media won't tell you that you have to wonder what war the U.S. media are reporting on.”
( Be honest: Does the shamelessly, almost CRIMINALLY propagandistic nature of the U.S. mainstream press still surprise ANY American? Don’t you really remember just for example the “New York Time”'s decision to simply sit on the N.S.A. domestic espionage scandal for a whole year until after the November 2004 presidential election, not to tarnish your Neocon gang?! )

Here a short history of the 5,56mm calibre:
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/5.56_x_45_mm_NATO

And here’s the link to another Internet discussion forum dedicated to comparing modern assault rifles ( including FN’s ) and calibres of the Iraq War ( the Internet is full of them ) , but these commentators – unlike YOU all – have already overcome their 5,56mm euphoria and gave a broad victory to… the old 7,62mm calibre and to… the G3 ( HE HE ) :

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/35-29034.aspx ( you have to scroll down below the publicity under the first post too )

See ya!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 2, 2007 07:08 PM

"If you blunt the pointed tip of a bullet with a Dremel"

[Not "blunt the tip"; notch the side, near the tip.]

"then you also make the bullet lighter."

[The weight loss would be negligible. You wouldn't want to change the weight or shape too much. That would destabilize the bullet.]

"simply to produce a new, spoon-point-tipped bullet that simply weighs the entire original 62 gr."

[Issuing new gear isn't "simple". Field expedients are. Certifying new gear takes years; testing a field expedient doesn't.]

"Are fragmenting bullets allowed in war?"

[Interesting question. The M193 55 grain bullet fragments out of a full length M16 barrel, as is the M855. IIRC, the applicable Geneva Accord only prohibits bullets that deform or flatten. IIRC, part of the argument for frangible bullets being more humane is that they are less likely to ricochet and hit noncombatants.]

"Unless of course that you use a cocktail of soft and hard bullets to be always prepared for any kind / possible hardness of targets that suddenly pop up in front of you"

[Yes, that's why you want two bullets that match ballistically.

The point of my post is not that the 7.62mm has no place in the order of battle. It does. The point of my post is that if you can make better bullets, you don't have to buy new launchers.

If what we already have can be improved quickly and cheaply, it's more cost and practically effective to do that now, while we continue to look for something better. DoD seems to be taking that tack.

My point was, DoD is in the process of issuing the Mk. 255, Mod. 0 to fix some of the 5.56mm's shortcomings. If the troops can't wait for it, maybe they can improve the 5.56mm on their own. If that doesn't work either, then they should pour 7.62mm, 25mm, 40mm, etc., etc. on target until it's no longer a threat.]

Posted by: Bob Ehling at March 1, 2007 07:19 PM

To the poster Thomas L. Nielsen:

“Please misunderstand me the right way: I'm certainly not calling the G3 a useless, constantly malfunctioning piece of crap.”

Maybe I’ve been misunderstood too, and not just by you:
Basically I don’t have some fetishism about the G3 or “Heckler&Koch” per se, I don’t even defend the G3’s perpetual use, improvement and modernization over the adoption of simply any other gun from an altogether different brand, but
1) I CERTAINLY DO defend the 7,62mm calibre - or anything bigger - as a future minimum calibre. Today’s invaders and bullies are First World countries ( plural? ) , not Third World countries!
and
2) I also lament that many of the G3’s – as well as it’s predecessors’ - superior features ( from the divided bolt and roller locking system to the easy inter-changeability of it’s bolts and barrels to it’s stamped steel construction to the high accessibility of it’s interior and inner parts to the pin system, only to name a few ) aren’t SYSTEMATICALLY copied by ALL posterior rifles which sometimes only present a single improvement in a single criterion ( if even that… ) and neglect all the others! Why?! Still pending, too expensive patent rights?
Small wonder that such an old-timer like theG3 still gets built and intimidates the newest rifles!
( The almost Wagnerian tale of the U.S. Americans and their M16’s should bug you more than my love affair with the G3! )

“And speaking of: If you don't mind revealing it - Which is your European country ? Just for the records ?”

I was afraid of that question. When I originally discovered that “defensetech” had discussion forums ( the things that you don’t discover when you just scroll down a Web-site page entirely…! ) I didn’t imagine immediately that it had such highly detailed, objective, interesting, almost didactic discussions ( I have to start making my own contributions to them yet… ) , so I inadvertently started to use this old nick-name out of inertia. The truth is that I “belong” to a couple of other, rather political Internet discussion forums, as you will discover if you just “google” my nick-name, and I’m not exactly a choir boy in them… ahem ahem ahem… Trouble is, if I reveal you more facts about me then “a couple” of aggravated posters from these other forums ( a little bit more dangerous fellows than just trolls… ) may read my answer to you too and slowly get an accurate picture of me. ( Have you never heard of Internet portal “Yahoo!”’s former and present discussion boards under it’s every news? )
What I can tell you is that thanks to my ( late ) father’s and mother’s different European nationalities and thanks to the fact that I was born in still another European country I have now three different nationalities. Of course this is not the sort of life story that you tell the incredibly narrow-minded embassy clerks when you renew all your identity cards and passports, especially not AFTER their expiry dates ( “How many nationalities do you have?” “But how did you live all this time without any identity card?” “If you say that you work abroad, did you never need it during all this time?” Etc. etc. … Lying requires memory… ) Hey, I nearly made it into two different drafts! But then my mother had to spoil my youthful prank and tell that second recruitment center not to accept me because I had already served once… I’ll NEVER forgive her for that!

Thanks God she was at least lucid enough to previously inform me of what she had just done!

“Something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark ? Certainly.”

Don’t be so harsh. I was only joking. YOU certainly have no right to say that! Denmark is the World’s most civilized, most perfect country, it’s women are gorgeous ( “completely under-rated” by the male Danes ) , the climate is Atlantic and mild, even in winter, and it’s incredibly laissez-faire and laissez-vivre mentality is cool too! That’s precisely what I’m looking for: A pleasant, small, quiet country, not a “great” one full of “Angst” ( = daily existential fear, like the Americans and Israelis ) where I can live according to the world-wide definition of happiness as “gilded mediocrity” and simply forget about the existence of the rest of the World and it’s problems. If Denmark hadn’t such restrictive immigration policies then you wouldn’t see me in any other country on Earth anymore! Remember that case when your government deported a German woman MARRIED to a Dane just because she had gotten ILL once during work? That’s rotten in Denmark… Do that lots of times and the American poster Earl will be right about the U.S. Americans having to keep European countries from each other’s throats again!
My other two preferences, Greece and especially Brazil, have more - or even too many - drawbacks in comparison to Denmark…
But deep down there I understand you: You’re only 5,5 millions and if you don’t watch out like that you will be immediately swamped by people from all other countries!
The only real oddity about Denmark is it’s Monarchy, a political system that I sub-consciously rather associate with the Dark Age or with African tribes…

“After all, you can't dislike people ( Germans ) who are that good at… xyz…”

I’m not going to bother you with public, encyclopaedic facts ( like for example that Germany exports mainly machines / tools etc. etc. ) but about my own experience about it. Since I don’t drink beer ( alcohol in general ), to me Germany is only good for THREE different things:

1) Education, especially professional and academic courses
2) Culture ( especially theatre. Although international co-productions like “Steiner – the Iron Cross”, “Equilibrium” and “The Perfume” etc. have generally good, even excellent results, NEVER EVER watch a modern, 100% German-only movie film or soap opera, especially not “awarded” one’s! They don’t even qualify as pornography. If Hollywood distinguishes it’s films for their commercial and Reichspropaganda value, Europe distinguishes it’s movies for their sickening intellectualism… )
3) Shopping, buying anything absolutely anywhere, even in the deepest province ( because of it’s nation-wide flaw-less logistics )

However, I personally FLEE from the rest! Most Germans never even become aware in their lives what exactly it is about them that makes foreigners feel creepy about them. Does it never strike you “how comes” that Germany never earned itself a similar reputation as a touristic destiny like France, Britain or even the small alpine countries, not even today? “Some cloud” hanging over them maybe…? The whole disgrace with them is that on the one side Germany is economically big, but unlike for example the British and the Italians Germans simply aren’t international enough in their heads.

My guess is that after Middle East ( and the U.S.A … ) problem is finally solved = in the intermediate future, the Germans will become “a problem” again, especially because on the long run 90% of all other countries are heading for the drain …

One reason is maybe – “honour” to whom “honour” is due - that Germans are particularly good at things military and wars, and mentalities just don’t change by decree.

When I look back on German History I couldn’t agree more with writer Paul Celan’s words: “Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland” ( “Death is a master from Germany” ) !

Doubts, even fake, polite one’s? Allow them to develop nuclear bombs!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 1, 2007 02:17 PM

To freefallingbomb:

I admit that maybe the tone was a bit harsh in my original comments on the G3. Please misunderstand me the right way: I'm certainly not calling the G3 a useless, constantly malfunctioning piece of crap. Far from it. It's solid, powerful and accurate. But my personal experience with the weapon makes me hesitate to call it the "best service/assault rifle ever".

Something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark ? Certainly. After all, right-wing extremism is on the rise, and we pay 50% income tax. Talk about rotten.....

Oh, and BTW, I have several good friends in the German armed forces (and no, I don't feel compelled to scream insults at them, although their "ancestors" did sort of show up for breakfast one morning in 1940 and didn't go home for 5 years). After all, you can't dislike people who are that good at engineering, and who make such good beer, and whose language is so cool (have you ever heart a German drill sergeant order recruits around ? Good Golly Ms. Molly is all I'm saying).

And speaking of: If you don't mind revealing it - Which is your European country ? Just for the records ?

Regards and all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at March 1, 2007 03:11 AM

To the poster Bob Ehling:

“…For example, another approach would be the German "loffelspitz" ("spoon point") that they tried with their 4.85mm assault rifle round some time ago. Our troops in the field could even experiment with that; with a Dremel tool you could probably notch the tip of the current issue M4 rounds, and see if it makes any difference on test targets, good or bad.…”

1) If you blunt the pointed tip of a bullet with a Dremel then you also make the bullet lighter. But light objects don’t travel as far ( through any medium, not in a vacuum ) as heavy objects do with the same speed…
Therefore, the only way to avoid weight loss of the bullet is not to ask soldiers to perform their own basic ballistic experiments before a fire-fight ( that’s what they were sent into combat for. I only hope that they get paid enough... ), but simply to produce a new, spoon-point-tipped bullet that simply weighs the entire original 62 gr.!

2) But if the main accusation against the 5,56mm bullet is it’s lack of range, what will a blunted nose instead of a pointed = aerodynamic one do to it’s little remaining range…?!

“It's frangible to prevent ricochet; perhaps coincidentally, it should also upset and/or fragment better in soft tissue.”

1) Are fragmenting bullets allowed in war?

2) And: How do you kill a soldier behind a brick wall, through his back-pack, under the visible top ( = the sloped part ) of his helmet or riding inside an U-N-armoured vehicle ( not to mention wearing a bullet vest ) with a shattering bullet?! Unless of course that you use a cocktail of soft and hard bullets to be always prepared for any kind / possible hardness of targets that suddenly pop up in front of you, but that’s not the “new issue 5.56mm round for training and use in urban environments” anymore. Otherwise your “glass” bullets, when ineffectively fired, just revealed your presence and your location to your target, which may just happen to be armed with a 7,62mm weapon ( WORSE : With a 7,62mm weapon deep inside 5,56mm range! ) that will unfailingly get through intact to YOU even despite that wall, tree or sand bag in front of you!
Obviously that goes also for all 7,62mm bullets that are safely outside your own maximum 5,56mm range too!

Sorry pals, but no matter how heroically you defend the “chic” 5,56mm bullet in “detriment” of the 7,62mm bullets ( which ARE already down-sized World-War-Two bullets and cartridges themselves! ) , it seems to me that you are only attempting to demonstrate the superiority of a short lance over a long lance! Keep trying!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at March 1, 2007 01:27 AM

A good history of the technology here:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Posted by: Earl at February 28, 2007 07:30 PM

Two comments on the original article.

1) DoD is already certifying a new issue 5.56mm round for training and use in urban environments which supposedly has the same ballistics as the current issue 62 gr. round. It's frangible to prevent ricochet; perhaps coincidentally, it should also upset and/or fragment better in soft tissue.

In short, guns don't kill people; bullets kill people. The solution to the 5.56mm's problems (apart from muzzle energy issues) might be a better bullet. For example, another approach would be the German "loffelspitz" ("spoon point") that they tried with their 4.85mm assault rifle round some time ago. Our troops in the field could even experiment with that; with a Dremel tool, you could probably notch the tip of the current issue M4 rounds, and see if it makes any difference on test targets, good or bad.

2) At this point in history, the huge investment we'll incur in replacing the 5.56mm/M16/M4 system may pay off better over the long run in a jump to new technology, such as caseless rounds. DoD's already working on that by way of a SAW replacement project. Replacing the 16 is going to cost a lot; it would be a shame to throw all that money at something else which is doomed to obsolescence in the near term.

Posted by: Bob Ehling at February 27, 2007 05:14 PM

"The XM-8 has "descendants" ALREADY ? (I thought that it hadn't even been born itself yet)"

"Pre-natal siblings" would have been a better choice of words. The way the reps for the thing talk about it as a "family" of weapons, you'd think they celebrated each other's birthday parties and went to church together on Sundays.

Posted by: ohwilleke at February 27, 2007 02:13 PM

To the poster Thomas L. Nielsen:

You asked:
"In exactly which NATO countries are "unlucky" infantrymen required to march 20-60 km a day carrying 51 kg packs plus a .50 cal ? I'm truly curious!"

Luckily not all European countries are cretine enough to spend their money on a single used Browning 0,50 cal. machine-gun, but the average, official, complete marching equipment ( from helmet to boot, and I think it’s even based on some U.S. military norm, because so many of these articles’ designations start with “M…” ) DOES weigh around that much in at least ONE European country - my own - and in others ( unfortunately… ) too! I gleaned that information from my own personal experience, from friends in several European countries and also from diverse books and magazines ( my favourite one: "Military Technology" , probably the best one in the World, and quite an old one too! )
http://www.amazon.com/Military-Technology/dp/B00006KNXZ

I also started to browse through some European Internet portals in order to provide you with some links, but then I discovered that I don't speak all the European languages.
I also believe that the average weight that a ( European ) soldier had to carry on his back increased continuously since the days of Waterloo, although I can’t pinpoint the exact source of that information with ISBN number etc. now. I hope that nobody calls me a “liar” because of that… If you saw my complete military library you would certainly forgive me.

Still, the British, who were the last Europeans to go into conventional war ( in Falklands / Malvinas ) , certainly DID (still do? ) carry that much, and, what's much worse, seemingly also FOUGHT loaded like mules too:

"S.L.A. Marshall in 1950 lucidly developed the fact that unit commanders were requiring their soldiers and marines to pack too much equipment while going into combat. During the early Twentieth Century several nations had conducted studies that illustrated that fact. The results of these studies produced many and diverse conclusions, but a general constancy was gleaned from this research. The foot-mobile combatant should not be expected to carry more than one-third of his normal body weight into battle. This fact has not only been ignored, but as recently as the campaigns in The Falkland Islands and Grenada, marines and soldiers have entered combat carrying well over 100 pounds."

( The rest: )
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1985/IDC.htm

Small wonder they lost…

Also: Next time you hop over the border to buy sausages in Flensburg ( NO , THAT’S NOT "my" European country. I'm multi-national anyway, like millions of other Europeans. ) , simply ask the first soldier you see standing around on leave about it ( but try to refrain from shouting "Judenbrennere" or anything that sounds similar at him, like I already saw some sober Danish tourists do in Germany ) !

Not that modern technology doesn't already try to reduce that back-pack load in any possible way:
http://pesn.com/2005/09/08/9600162_Power-Generating_Backpack/

There is light at the end of the tunnel for the humble grunt!

Still, I'm beginning to envy you for your relaxing military service!

Something's rotten in the kingdom of Denmark...

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 27, 2007 01:15 PM

To Freefallingbomb:

"In most NATO countries the complete marching equipment of the AVERAGE infantryman ( NO : NOT of any paratroopers! ) is around 51 kgs, everybody has to walk cross-country for 20 kms – 60 kms a day, sometimes under a searing summer sun, and the unluckier one’s may even have to carry the cumulus of U.S. American military apoplexy, the Browning 0,50 calibre machine gun, on top of that too"

In exactly which NATO countries are "unlucky" infantrymen required to march 20-60 km a day carrying 51 kg packs plus a .50 cal ? I'm truly curious!

I think (but I'm not sure) it was Jeff Cooper who once said that if you want to know whether a particular rifle is light enough to carry all day in the field, grab it in one hand an stretch your arm out 90 degrees to your side, holding the weapon like that. If you can't do that for 1 minute, the thing is too heavy.

Now, I can do that with a G3, but it sure isn't any fun. Especially since there are lighter weapons that will do the job just fine. So maybe that makes me a weakling, a lazy slob or not-a-real-man-and-certainly-not-as-much-of-a-man-as-me, but there you are.

Oh, and how come noone has mentioned the FN 2000 ? One of those in 6.5mm MPC or 7mm Whisper could just possibly be the Best Individual Weapon Ever, provided of course that it proves reliable and durable in the field.

And no, I'm certainly no fan of the 5,56x45mm as a military cartridge. From a 20" barrel it is marginally adequate. From anything shorter, I consider it a joke (although not a very funny one).

Regards and all that,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at February 27, 2007 02:21 AM

Re. Earl's post of February 24, 2007:

"The only thing that has kept Europeans from tearing each others throats out in the last 60 years has been the protection of the USA and the threat of the Russians."

What can I say, Earl, if you truly believe this to be true you have either
a) never been to Europe (excluding the countries of our unruly Balkan cousins in the South. Although Croatia is nice this time of year), or
b) not been following your doctors instructions regarding your medication.

Regards, etc.
Thomas
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at February 27, 2007 02:08 AM

To the poster "ohwilleke" :

The XM-8 has "descendants" ALREADY ? ( I thought that it hadn't even been born itself yet! )

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 27, 2007 12:09 AM

To the poster Thomas L. Nielsen:

Strange: I’ve really heard this particular argument, that the 4,4 kgs heavy G3 becomes somehow “too heavy after a few hours”, frequently now! Pity. I really wished that it wasn’t necessary to hear that specific complaint so often…
I’ve even met a guy in the Artillery who curiously could only make pull-ups in the early morning WITHOUT his G3 on his back, but I give you my word of honour that I can barely even imagine something like that, not even today, and today I’m almost twice as old as back then in the draft!
Maybe that’s because I’m quite tall and weigh over 100 kgs and still do sports, but my personal case shouldn’t count as an argument: In most NATO countries the complete marching equipment of the AVERAGE infantryman ( NO : NOT of any paratroopers! ) is around 51 kgs, everybody has to walk cross-country for 20 kms – 60 kms a day, sometimes under a searing summer sun, and the unluckier one’s may even have to carry the cumulus of U.S. American military apoplexy, the Browning 0,50 calibre machine gun, on top of that too, ( try carrying THAT if you accuse the G3 of being “heavy”… JUST lift it off the ground ONCE , together with tripod and ammunition box. You’ll INSTANTLY REGRET not having dodged the draft! ) , sometimes even after a firing exercise ( drop a single drop of water then on it’s barrel! ), but when necessary I even offered to carry parts of other, weaker soldier’s luggage and their G3’s too!

I wonder: Would a bit of physical exercise help…?

However, I don’t recall having EVER been so minutious like you while cleaning my G3. Most of the times my sergeants just wanted to see if I remembered how to squeeze that cursed two-part, roller-locked bolt, which every H&K weapon shares, together again and without hurting myself ( or without hurting them, if I asked them for help ) . I believe that you perfectly remember still “WHAT” I mean! Nevertheless my own G3 only misfired once: That one cartridge was visibly bent, like a banana. I stole it and still keep it today, as a souvenir. Maybe I’ll burn it one day. Apart from that, and modesty apart too, I was always the third best shot in my regiment, and always with the same “eventually slightly neglected” weapon ( the two better shooters were instructors ) . But if you think for example of the 7 little pins ( instead of any screws ) that hold the whole assault rifle ingeniously and firmly together you have to admit that “not many” other “modern” ( heed the quotation marks ) firearms are even approximately as repairable out there in the field and generally user- and trainee-friendly!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 27, 2007 12:02 AM

The most compelling argument for change is that new small arms are relatively cheap (everyone in the U.S. Army could get a new rifle for $1 billion even at $2,000 each). This is the cost of 1 destroyer (or less in the case of the DD(X)), or 10 fighter aircraft (give or take, depending on the model).

There are lots of commentators who looked at the XM-8 (and its descendants) and found it wanting vis-a-vis other possible alternatives. This may very well be true. I don't recall any who thought the proposed new model was worse than a legacy M-4 or M-16. If we spend $1 billion on an improvement from the status quo, and then have to spend another $1 billion five years later on something even better, so be it. Buying new guns also eliminates the need to buy new M-4s and M-16s, so it isn't a complete loss even then.

It appears, looking through the dark glass that its Defense Procurement that the reason an upgrade was abandoned was an issue of proper contracting fairness. In other words, the loser could have sued for lost profits due to a rigged process. In peacetime, that attitude makes sense. In a time of war, if we have to pay some other company its 40% markup of lost profits (perhaps $400 million), on top of the $1 billion contract price paid to the winner, so be it.

Posted by: ohwilleke at February 26, 2007 05:40 PM

Good Morning Thomas L. Nielsen, freefallingbomb et. all,

Some interesting comments here. First I will address Mr. Nielsen, me thinks you answered your own questions as well as I could.

It's the ammo baby. For the weight of 100 rds. of 7.62x51mm NATO a rifleman can carry nearly 300 Rds. of 5.56x49mm NATO and current Infantry tacts uase the spray and pray at targets around a 150 meters or less, the choice seem quite appearent of the perfered round for us in an assualt rifle.

Another point that elimates the 7.62x51mm Rd. is that it is almost uncontrolable in either three round burst or full auto(rock and roll for my generation of Riflemen) for the majority os soldiers. The U.S. M-14 E-2 was not a successful weapon, very few ever qualified on the weapon in AIT, I was one who did.

The G-3 as far as I know is not considered an assualt rifle but just a standard service rifle for the era much the same as the U.S. M-14.

Now to freefallingbomb somewhere out in out in never-neverland. Both the Russians and Chinese have there own Assualt Weapon programs already in place and both are way ahead of the U.S. The Russians are currentlt fielding the "excellent" AK-74 in a 5.45x39mm round and it has been given high marks by NATO for accuracy and durability. It was fielded in 1974.

The Chinese have another (so far as we know) excellent assualt the Type 90 in their own 5.8mm round. Although not much is know about this weapon in the west, it appears to be a solid weapon. It has been in actual use in the field with SOF Battalions since 1990.

So freefallingbomb as you surly can see the U.S. is playing a game of catch up here. The Russians and Chinese have already committed tp 21st. Century assualt weapons programs while the U.S. is still fielding what is in essense 70 year old WW II technology with the Stoner AR operating system.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 26, 2007 02:09 PM

Re. freefallingbomb's post on February 25, 2007.

Here, you state:
"The best ASSAULT RIFLE in the World:
The classic G3 in the 7,62 mm calibre ( 4,4 kgs weight, 600 rounds per minute )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G3
I don’t understand why Mr. Byron Skinner thinks that it’s age belittles it’s fire rate, it’s accuracy, it’s dumbfounding reliability and it’s bullets’ performance… the only critic I have against the G3 is it’s relatively small magazine!"

Now, the G3 was the standard service rifle of the Danish armed forces (incl. the Home Guard) for something like 30 years, and I have a couple of issues with you statements:
1. What have you been smoking when you herald the G3's "dumbfounding reliability" ? Dumbfounding, yes. Reliable, no!
2. You don't touch upon this, but cleaning the G3 is a bitch! getting crud out of those roller recesses in the barrel extension takes ages, and unless you're careful here, your heavy, accurate, powerful, beautifully made rifle stops working real quick.
3. Have you ever lugged a G3 plus 5 magazines around all day, together with a full combat load? I have, all over the beautifull Danish countryside, and let me tell you: 4,4 kgs (approx 9 lbs.) is WAY TOO MUCH! Yes, the terminal ballistics are supposedly better, yes, it is admittedly very accurate, but who cares when you're so pooped you can't even lift it to eye level at the end of the day ?

Sorry, but no. Give me a H&K G36C in 7,62x39mm. Or failing that, and AK107 with better sights. So what if the effective range is limited to about 250 yards ? Beyond that I couldn't hit a white whale on a black background anyway.

Regards
Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at February 26, 2007 02:18 AM

Yes, it's a tactic I use often. I'll use it again. Somebody had to do it, it was getting bizarre. Some of the hyperbolic statements, I even agreed with, but most I did not. Anyway, it worked, Freefalling's 5am comments, I agree with one hundred percent.

I have no tolerance for Patriotism/Nationalism, (Lou Dobbs thinking), World War and Vietnam analogies, WW3 rhetoric, US political partisans, Religion, environmentalism, global pessimism, etc....All of which I encounter everday on every topic. Hence my 'outdated world view' comments. That usually, gets people going.

As for the small arms topic, if anyone wants to challenge my comments and facts, that's great, that's what it is all about. I don't claim to be an expert in anything except International Finance and Philosophy. China, Iran, 4GW, and modern assault rifles, happens to be a passion of mine.

All of my rifle comments are based on my experience/taste/preferences, balanced against what should happen, to what will actually happen. I have no faith in any Government's ability to choose the best of anything. A frustration shared by many.

If we are stuck with the 62gr M855 5.56mm, I would choose the HK 416/417. I have a bias towards HK. I'm sure the FN SCAR is a great weapon, much better than the M4, I just don't like it compared to the HK. I don't like the HK G36/XM8, and FN F2000, as fieldable rifles, either. For whatever reason the M4 is still being purchased, and that is unfortunate. I am still a 6.8mm fan.

Posted by: BT at February 25, 2007 08:52 PM

To M. Byron Skinner:

You said: “…the XM-8 is of foreign design, H&K it is a revision of the H&K G-36 if I recall…”

Here’s some more information about the new “Heckler&Koch” XM-8 assault rifle:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Gear_051104_XM8,00.html
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128512,00.html
http://www.gzhq.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4605
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/xm8.aspx
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_XM8,,00.html
http://www.reviewsecurityprod.com/rifle1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM-8

And here is a serious question to you and to everybody:

Imagine that China, North Korea, Iran, Russia and lots of other very peaceful countries adopted the XM-8 ( I don’t think that arms dealers like “Heckler&Koch” ever formed any political or ideological opinions or scruples… ) and even spread them around in the World among their countless little “non-governmental” friends while the U.S.A. clung on nostalgically to the M16.

How does one defend oneself against any number of attacking soldiers armed with XM-8’s ( mind the under-slung “D.I.M.E.” launchers !!! ) ??

( More background information about the “D.I.M.E.” ammunition. The Jews used it a lot against civilians last summer in Southern Lebanon, but I think that the U.S. are still testing it: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dime.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002434.html ( an article from defensetech! )
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/sdb-flm.htm

Israel employed/employs dense inert metal explosive (“D.I.M.E.”) ammunitions against Palestinians = 100 % cancer rate even among only slightly wounded survivors!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1019/dailyUpdate.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5328
http://judicial-inc.biz/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive.htm

Since even a LIP-STICK-sized D.I.M.E. shell can disinfect a 8 meters x 8 meters x 8 meters volume ( room or house ) , will the order to “withdraw” ever be given / heard by anyone? How many soldiers will ever survive in such a short future combat?
And imagine now that these 4 cm grenade–launchers under the XM-8’s also fired thermobaric rounds…?

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 25, 2007 07:47 PM

I know that it’s week-end, but I’m nevertheless in a bit of a hurry, so, and in order to present everybody with my personal views and choices about ideal firearms and calibres for infantrymen I present you this as my “visit card” ( heed the links too: Some of them are quite worth it! It’s only a pity that “defensetech”’s discussion forums don’t hyper-link, I really didn’t mean to put you through unnecessary “work”… But feel free to ravage against my choices afterwards! ) :

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

The best ASSAULT RIFLE in the World:
The classic G3 in the 7,62 mm calibre ( 4,4 kgs weight, 600 rounds per minute )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_G3
I don’t understand why Mr. Byron Skinner thinks that it’s age belittles it’s fire rate, it’s accuracy, it’s dumbfounding reliability and it’s bullets’ performance… the only critic I have against the G3 is it’s relatively small magazine!

Or, better than the G3: It’s very similar looking, but heavier version, the HK 21 A1, also in the 7,62mm calibre ( 8 kgs weight, 800 - 900 rounds per minute, depending on your information source:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg18-e.htm
http://www.riflesnguns.com/machine/hk/21 ( scroll down the main-page a bit to access the text )
http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/21/21.htm
But the HK 21 is sincerely more of a light squad machine gun or general purpose machine gun than an individual assault rifle and also Heckler&Koch’s world-wide competitor against the Belgian “FN Minimi” with it’s 6,5 kgs of weight and 850 rounds per minute which the U.S.A. also adopted ( as the “M249”, but in the wrong calibre. Naturally. ) .

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

The best HEAVY MACHINE GUN in the World:
The MG3 in the 7,62 mm calibre ( 11,5 kgs weight, fire rate 1.200 rounds per minute ) :
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg08-e.htm
But admittedly, the MG3 does NOT have ( at least not to my knowledge… ) the spectacularly LONG uninterrupted automatic firing capacity without exploding of the 10,5 kgs heavy U.S. American M60 E4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2JJ_sqbwPk&NR
( but the U.S. American M60 E4 in turn has also only a rate of fire of 550 rounds per minute = LESS THAN HALF of that of the MG3, what goes against the twice World-War-proven German tradition of providing all their firearms with the highest possible firing rates… )

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

The best SNIPING CALIBRE ( NOT : Rifle! ) in the World:
The new U.S. American calibre .408 “CheyTac”, an even better gap-filler ( = in the sense of anti-matériel calibres ) between the 7.62mm NATO calibre and the .50 Browning calibre than the .338 Lapua Magnum:
http://www.snipersparadise.com/ELR/CheyTac.htm ( EXCELLENT pedagogical text for all those with already a little knowledge about ammunitions! )
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=472
http://www.ada.ru/guns/ballistic/408CheyTac/ ( comparison in Russian but with coloured graphs between the .408 “CheyTac”, the .338 Lapua magnum and the calibre .50 BMG )
http://www.cheyennetactical.com/ammo.htm ( “Cheyenne Tactical”’s own Web-site about it )

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

The best SNIPER RIFLE in the World ( and not only in the 7,62 mm calibre, but in also various other calibres ) :
The “DSR 1” from a relatively small, young and unknown German company with the odd name “AMP Technical Services” :
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm
http://www.the3dstudio.com/(ws2cu4q45p3kgoar1t4gyu55)/product_details.aspx?id_product=16947 ( scroll down to access text )
http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/sniper/dsr1.html
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=799
The DSR 1’s missing angle ( or dispersion cone ) is only 0,2 M.O.A.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc#Firearms
meaning that it’s bullets “miss” ( ?? ) their targets for only 5 MILLIMETRES measured bullet-tip-to-bullet-tip at 100 yards or distribute themselves inside a 5 centimetres wide circle at 1.000 yards distance, distances at which I can hardly SEE anymore such minuscule targets/objects, even through a scope!
That’s why when I wrote above that this sniper rifle is the “best” in the World I was actually being sober and technically objective: There are hardly many first champions alive in Olympic rifle shooting that can make good use of SO MUCH inherent precision, not even when lying on their bellies and aided by two tripods, strong amplifying scopes, match ammunition, holding their breaths and with no cross winds blowing etc. etc. etc.! ( TRY TO …! ) Since the arrival of the DSR 1 I gained the weird impression for the first time in my life that any sniper rifle company could actually even “exaggerate” with her guns’ precisions!

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

A “good” ANTI-MATÉRIEL SNIPER RIFLE :
The Austrian Steyr IWS 2000 in the 15,2 mm calibre ( 18 kgs weight ) , whose tungsten darts slosh through 4 cms of steel ( = through absolutely EVERYTHING except modern battle tanks and underground bunkers ) at 1 KILOMETRE distance!
http://www.steyr-aug.com/amr.htm ( Steyr’s own Web-site about it )
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn46-e.htm ( just look at the bullet comparison in the third picture from above and be AFRAID … BE VERY AFRAID … to have to fire this gun one day, of course… )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000

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

I’m only a civilian layman ( a humble weapons enthusiast ) but I’m deeply convinced that if any army in the whole World EVER selected it’s light infantry weapons HONESTLY = COMPLETELY OBJECTIVELY = EXCLUSIVELY on the grounds of performance and reliability ( and not on the typical “grounds” of lowest price and highest bakchich for all the intermediaries, etc. - although I DO consider a license to produce everything nationally to be fundamental ) then they would most probably reach the same conclusions as I did, above ( nowadays ) . And in the future? I’m convinced even of the following: In » 30 years from now all infantry weapons will naturally become much better than these one’s here, but ANY SMALL country that has a mix of draft and professional army then and whose infantry still trains intensely on the weapons listed above will always be “quite” protected against invasions, even from the World’s biggest bullies! Even in the intermediate future! ( If the talibans managed to defeat two Super-Powers, first the Soviets and now the U.S. Americans with the SAME FEW , » 70 years old, rusting ‘Enfield’ rifles without spare parts… )

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 25, 2007 06:29 PM

To Earl's last comment from the 25th of February of 2007, 11:36 a.m.

Hat off to EVERY SINGLE phrase of that post of yours!

( First I thought of saying EXACTLY THE SAME to BT too, but then I thought to myself: Eagles don't feed on sparrows.
I think that blind patriotism is his problem... )

Byron S(k)inner is indeed from a platoon farther ahead: Any possible replies to HIS posts need to be thoroughly recherched first!

But they will...

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 25, 2007 06:06 PM

Good Morning freefallingbomb,

Interesting response to my post. Although I'm not sure you understood what I said I will TRY and respond to your comments.

1. I'm not sure where we disagree here. If you would have included my comments on the 6.5 and 6.8mm bullets as being more suited for Infantry and combat troops I can't see any real point s of dispute here.

2. On expanding bullets, I only mentioned that they would be a solution to the problem of close quarter take down power. If you finished my quoting my statement you would have noticed that I said if we start using expanding bullets we could also expect the enemy to do likewise. I didn't suggest this solution to the prioblem.

3. Regarding foreign weapons. The ones you mention are all vintage firearms the G-3 is from the 60's if I recall and the XM-8 is of foreign drsign, H&K it is a revision of the H&K G-36 if I recall, which is widely used by Germany.

Although I didn't mention it in this post but have before I thing the H&K MP-7 with its 4.6mm cartidge would be an excellent choice oas a weapon for combat support troops and support troops. It is verstial, less expensive then the M-9, and has more fire power. In fact I don't think that I mentioned any weapon of domestic design as being in the mix. Althout the Barlett 416 looks good at this point as along range Sniper Rifle. It still need a lot more field testing.

The problems of weapons design and useage are more then just technical problems. They also embrace national cultures, politicial considerations as well as being aware that it could come back at ya.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 25, 2007 12:57 PM

Here's an example of how I think the conversation went astray:

Perhaps one poster insults others by writing:

"...outdated nationalistic world views."

Then tries to take the high ground by first preaching:

"This is not the place for conspiracy theories..."

Then by returning to the original topic with rational and relevant comments.

While I agree that we have gone astray from the topic, it is not BT's place to set us straight. His sort of behavior is almost gauranteed to set at least a few people off.

I am still interested in hearing from some people with real world experience with this inportant topic, not another bullshit artist like BT. Perhaps Byron Skinner is the only one we have heard from so far.

Posted by: Earl at February 25, 2007 11:36 AM

To: Mr.Byron Skinner

Good morning, not-so-(n)anonymous Mr. Byron Skinner!

1) “The 5.56 for general use is here to stay, it's virtue is only 3.5lbs. of recoil. The 7.63 with 16lbs, of recoil is far too much for our modern Military who is now about 20% female.”

I know that that’s true, but is the enemy ( loosely defined ) also morally supposed to be soft on U.S. American women that wear helmets? Otherwise, just imagine that the enemy selfishly refuses to lose his superior firepower and to buy toy calibre guns “out of consideration for the ladies”: Will he simply get called “un-modern”, “politically incorrect”, “no fair-player” and “not in” etc. in the Western Press?
Are we still taking this business called “war” as serious as our grandparents did?!

Sorry, but I will never understand why you still look for post-fact legitimizations of this unspeakable decision to adopt the 5,56mm calibre. The former, official, though incredibly flimsy “logic” behind this calibre decrease from 7,62mm to 5,56mm was always “to create as many wounded” - not dead anymore - enemies as possible, in order to
a) tie up the remaining healthy enemy troops in the middle of a combat with their evacuation
and
b) reduce the enemy country’s post-war economic recovery and especially that country’s monetary reserves and any other discretionary budgets for a life-time by forcing as much of it as possible to be spent on expensive care for the greatest possible number of war wounded.
Two principles that are based on the enemy combatant’s presumed Christian charitableness, a typical feature of the people we fight…
In the meantime our own soldiers are bereft of maximum fire-power just in case they fall into an ambush or so. Probably at least one generation of “5,56mm guinea pigs” has to be sacrificed in these great military experiments ( they give glory to the generals ) to investigate the long-term effects of our strategists’ brilliant theories in reality and in full scale…

2 ) “Let the Military use the same expanding bullets that hunters can use and kills at short range will be more common.”

a) The softness of a bullet greatly contributes to it’s lethality against live tissue. The softer it is, the more it deforms ( “mushrooms” ) , the larger the canal becomes which it carves through the target’s body. If African hunters consider the .308 NATO calibre ( or: 7,62mm ) “super-safe” to hunt 120 kgs- 250 kgs heavy lions ( medium game in general ) than the only reason why a bullet of this calibre allows ~ 80kgs heavy wounded soldiers ( self-mutilated deserters, all of them! ) to wave to the cameras instead of screaming and twisting themselves like a disemboweled Mel Gibson in “Braveheart” is that the bullets that hit them were too pointed and too hard!
Therefore, make sure that you know what you want before yearning for the return of the soft bullets: The enemy WILL OBVIOUSLY emulate you and then I’m suddenly not so sure anymore if any blood coagulants ( “hemostatic agents” ) , tourniquets, blood transfusions, amputations, fast medevacs and other life-saving measures will spare all your country’s casualties with “simple bullet wounds” from becoming fatalities after discovering that their holes have “suddenly grown” spectacularly, a shift in the statistics that even soft Hitlers like Bush, Blair and Olmert might wish to dispense!

b) But isn’t that ( expansive bullets for soldiers ) equivalent to breaching ~ 100.000 Geneva Conventions at once?!

c) Anyway, since body armour is world-wide slowly entering in a similar spiralling race against bullets and shrapnels today as tank armour did against anti-tank-guns in the Second World War and double-plated battle-ship walls did against ship guns in the First World War etc. etc. , I, unlike you, believe that in the future the trend for infantry bullets will rather be to increase and not to decrease in both calibre and hardness.

3) I noticed that you too completely ignored the broad palette of superior European infantry weapons available today discreetly. I’m curious: What would Y-O-U have against a COMBINATION of
G3
HK21 A1
MG3
DSR 1
to arm the individual U.S. infantryman and his platoon ( all of them in any given calibre: Calibres are NOT the issue here, and purely theoretically speaking of course, and patriotisms aside, please ) ?!

Or do you think that it is already too late now to commission all these generations of weapons one more ( single?) time, with the XM-8 already prying around the corner?

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 25, 2007 05:47 AM

How did this conversation go from, how and why the US has obsolete small arms, to which country is the most "evil"? It appears 'Nonoymous' fell off the rocking chair first, and then it got nasty, with 'Freefallingbomb' taking the whacko prize so far. Please keep the discussion relevant to the story as much as possible. This is not the place for conspiracy theories, and outdated nationalistic world views.

A 5.56mmx45mm 62gr has muzzle energy of 1200 ft/lbs; Even the 77gr only delivers 1300 ft/lbs. A 7.62x51mm has muzzle energy of 2600 ft/lbs. Rough numbers. They don’t compare to big game ammo like the .300 Winmag and my favorite Dinosaur killer, the .338 Lapua, 300gr 5200 ft/lbs. A Sniper's wet dream. Damn Geneva Convention. No 7.62mm/5.56mm FMJ for me.

Any 5.56mm is acceptable for anti-personnel at 100 meters, if you’re accurate. Anyway, I have always heard the 5.56 was designed to wound. If that is true, it does no good for the current enemy we are fighting. I prefer a bullet in the one hundred grain range.

Anyone with a $1000 can buy NIJ L4 body armor. The military better find a small caliber bullet that offers hard armor piercing, superior soft tissue damage, accuracy, and range. Not an easy balance. I am not convinced of the so called Blended Metal bullets. The days of fighting regular armies ended in 1991, the other branches better get with the program, and follow SOCOM.

I don't know how many troops are allowed to use a 77gr MK262 Match. Not ideal, but better. A heavier bullet, traveling slower is generally more effective for soft tissue damage, and more deadly at longer ranges. The wound patterns indicate this.

With the shorter barrels being used, a 110-115 grain 6.8mm SPC (1700 ft/lbs) is the best choice for soft tissue, but will never implemented service wide, so the 77gr should be standard. There is always 'Open Tip' and 'Hollow Points', but their legality and reciprocity is debatable.

The US military should switch calibers and guns. Of the 6.8mm, the Barret M468 6.8mm SPC would be the easiest to convert from the Colt M4 5.56mm. It weighs 8.1 lbs, and even has 30 round 6.8mm mags. The military already buys Barret .50 rifles, so I wouldn't be controversial, like some other gun makers. I prefer the smaller, custom 6.8mm gun makers, but they aren't proven large scale and high volume US manufacturers, like Barret. Someone needs to find the BALLS to end the Colt monopoly, and the M16Ax 5.56mm 50 year nightmare.

Posted by: BT at February 25, 2007 04:52 AM

To Steve, to Earl and to nanonymous ( to nanonymous "pre-emptively" too ) :

Do you U.S. Americans want to sleep forever on your laurels?
Things changed a bit, you know?
Or do you think that former honour is a justification for present shame?
Hitler appealed to Germany's former honour too, even a lot ( and in fact it had been cheated by the Allies after World War One, when they illicitly converted President Wilson's 14 Points for a truce into a Versailles Treaty for peace, but that’s irrelevant now ), so was this right now your “best defense” of the “honour” of the U.S.A.'s slaughter ( including torture, in lots of cases! ) of 600.000 - 700.000 innocent civilians in Iraq so far, with no end in sight? Before that, the U.S.A. also invented the “humanitarian interventions” ( Reichspropaganda around the Somalia invasion ), then they pondered the use of tactical nukes against a decade-long besieged country whose “W.M.D.”’s are a lie of the aggressing President personally, coincidentally the same President who also ordered all anthrax attacks investigations to be stopped, then the U.S.A. invented “pre-emptive”, non-U.N.O.-sanctioned wars ( like Iraq II ) , then the U.S.A. tinkered with science fiction scenarios of “winnable nuclear wars”, indeed already fired 405 tons of depleted uranium in 3 ( nuclear? ) wars against 2 countries ( half-life of your “liberating” effects: 4,5 billion years ) , renounced unilaterally several space-war-related treaties with Russia and even started placing several anti-missile interceptors suspiciously around Russia ( recently in Poland and in the Czech Republic ) , officially to intercept the ( non-existent ) “Iranian” intercontinental missiles ( nuclear or not ) , then you invented the “new” Guantánamo “prisoner status”, etc. etc. etc. , and now you even want "respect" from ANY foreigner?! Hey – the poster Byron Skinner even suggested the distribution of Dum-Dum bullets for the U.S. Armed Forces today!

Are you U.S. Americans really sure about what exactly you’re asking for from planet Earth, and in such a haste and for NO intelligent motive at all?!

Pepsi – ask for more!

The whole World is perfectly aware of your P-A-S-T great deeds, but no one accepts this "argument" for the Neocons' present crimes! ( Would you accept Bach and Goethe as an excuse for Auschwitz? )

I was also always taught since small that if the whole World has an opinion about me and I ignore it and even act otherwise then I'm an autist, but for Heaven’s sake: If you already simply condone everything your Nazi soldiers do abroad nowadays, don’t EVER talk of - or even claim any - foreign support for that: No, we’re NOT like you! The Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi just resigned two days ago over his Parliament’s refusal to support your Fascist war!

Double standards in international politics of the U.S.A.:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021028/zunes

Bush isolated among foreign political leaders:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush_s_foreign_friends

Proximity to Bush isolates politicians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060908/ap_on_re_eu/britain_blair

Some people see the U.S.A. as a threat to peace:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12441

Europeans and Muslims see the U.S.A. as a bigger threat to World peace than the Iranian nuclear program:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5077984.stm
( Congratulations! How did you manage that?! )

Nearly 100 % of all Muslims hold an unfavourable opinion of the United States of America:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7080-2004Jul22.html

Is any U.S. American still proud today of defeating the Germans, the Nazis and the Axis in general?

Bush tried for war crimes?
http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/19217/Could_Bush_Be_Prosecuted_for_War_Crimes
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051406a.html

By Nuremberg standards Bush would be hanged:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6235.htm

U.S. American politicians and U.S. American top Military already found guilty of war crimes in former Yugoslavia:
http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/wct2000.htm
( Were you maybe being excessively… “protective” of Europeans, Earl? )

Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, George Tenet and 11 other U.S. top officials sued in Germany for war crimes in Iraq:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_re_eu/germany_rumsfeld_suit

Etc. etc. etc. … ( don’t ask to see the rest: I’ve got 2 MegaBytes ONLY of links like THOSE ! )

P.S.: And America will disappear under the sombrero far sooner ( = “North American Union” – your President’s pet project ) than Europe will disappear under the Crescent! In a couple of decades from now you’ll even pioneer a new concept called “white boat-people”!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 24, 2007 10:29 PM

Freefallingbomb:

Wow! You are so profoundly wrong on so many of your contentions that it is difficult to know where to start to reply. Or perhaps, a reply would be fruitless. But...I’ll at least give it a try.

“The U.S. Military’s change to a “warrior” creed encourages it’s soldiers to commit atrocities against defenseless civilians
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1603876.ece ( the full text has to be paid for )

OK… we here in Europe also had such a “phase”: 1000 years ago!”

The United States Armed Forces have behaved with remarkable honor and humanity in some of the most brutal conflicts in history. An entire generation of German children were saved from starvation because American soldiers gave them their own food. The “warrior creed” is just the current effort to insure that our servicemen and women think about those traditions they are asked to continue.

Perhaps your history does not include the behavior of the Wehrmacht or Schutzstaffel only 60 years ago. Or the Italians in North Africa. Or the Spanish during the civil war. Or the Bosnians and Slovakians. Or the Russians (Oh my, the Russians!). And the French Foreign Legion—they are SO nice to civilians! If there are any militaries on the planet who wish to claim innocence for the last thousand years, why please, jump right into the discussion.

The only thing that has kept Europeans from tearing each others throats out in the last 60 years has been the protection of the USA and the threat of the Russians. Of course that didn’t work when your Yugoslavian fellow Europeans finally were freed from Tito. They DID tear each others throats out while Europe watched!

Posted by: Earl at February 24, 2007 04:33 PM

For freefallingbomb:

You've got so many intellectually disingenuous thoughts in your post, it's hard to choose. I'll just tackle a couple.

"And should the talibans EVER lay hands on some sort of Stinger missiles or even on… TACTICAL NUKES than it will be only because they were supplied this ultra-sophisticated hardware to use against the U.S.A. by the… U.S.A. themselves!!!"

Really. Tactical nukes. Obtained from the US. I don't make the rounds of the tin-foil brigade/"guv'mint" conspiracy/leftnut websites regularly, so please enlighten us with some evidence.

"The U.S. Military’s change to a “warrior” creed encourages it’s soldiers to commit atrocities against defenceless civilians
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1603876.ece ( the full text has to be paid for )"

That's an amazingly hyperbolic EDITORIAL, containing a rather amazing, death defying leap between conjecture and conclusion. I haven't seen a leap like that since Evel Knievel tried to jump over the Snake River at the Grand Canyon.

"OK… we here in Europe also had such a “phase”: 1000 years ago!"

It's good you got out of that "phase". I guess your current "phase", you know the one involving massive racial turmoil, moribund economies, political correctness and secular humanism as the new state religions is so much better. Enjoy it while it lasts. If the demographic shifts you're undergoing now continues, you may have a new state religion in the near future: Islam.

Posted by: steve at February 24, 2007 03:41 PM

To nanonymous:

“If you think a round kills only by tumbling, than you don't know very much about ballistics, wound mechanics, or basic physics, for that matter.”

To claim that the 5,56mm round even “kills” - no matter how! - is already… F-L-A-T-T-E-R-I-N-G it!

“Nor do you know much about the US effort to support the muj, if you think they beat the Sovs with a few old Enfields.”

Excuse me, but illuminate me please: Who’s supporting the mudjaheddin right now in their VICTORIOUS struggle against the World’s first and sole Hyper-Power?!
The enigmatic, sinister sect of world-wide tea kettle manufacturers, whose old, leaking products are used to make highly effective I.E.D.’s?!

And should the talibans EVER lay hands on some sort of Stinger missiles or even on… TACTICAL NUKES than it will be only because they were supplied this ultra-sophisticated hardware to use against the U.S.A. by the… U.S.A. themselves!!! Nooooo, actually I wasn’t even thinking of the 1980’s Stingers ( surprise, surprise! ) :

The U.S. Armed Forces “somehow lost track” of 278.000 weapons purchased for the Iraqi Security Forces by December of 2006 :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061030/ts_nm/iraq_reconstruction_report_dc_1

380 tons of high explosives gone missing in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, strong enough to be used in nuclear warheads :
http://www.dawn.com/2004/10/26/top13.htm
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread91020/pg1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136466,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-25-missing-explosives_x.htm
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2004-10/2004-10-25-voa15.cfm?CFID=8883268&CFTOKEN=77204303
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion?pg=full

4.000 ( yes: FOUR THOUSAND !!! ) man-portable ground-to-air-missiles ( =small anti-aircraft missiles ) gone missing in Iraq after the U.S. invasion :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31050-2004Nov6.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-11-07-missiles-edit_x.htm

Imagine if only 10 % of them make it outside the country!

Whom would you blame THEN for the clamorous defeat of the U.S.A. everywhere?! ( Come on: I WANT to hear this delicious phrase! )

“Ironically, you're displaying exactly the same sort of semi-religious tribal pride in procurement that's mentioned above.”

If there is a continent that has never had any complexes about equipping itself internationally than it is my own, Europe, NOT the U.S.A.!
Just compare the number of multi-national airplane and missile projects here in Europe with that in the U.S.A.!
Lack of standardization is only a problem because of Europe’s NATO countries, not because of the U.S.A., not just because of it’s many members but also because since “not all” European countries have a completely self-sufficient arms industry, so they naturally buy abroad or build together in international teams!

And the only image which MY OWN mind conjures up when I associate precisely those words “semi-religious”, “tribal” and “pride” with modern Militaries is… the U.S.A. , since it’s run by a born-again, bible-belting chimpanzee who really claims that he ( sorry, Your Majesty: “H-E” ! ) is a descendant of King David himself by royal lineage, Commander-in-Chief of Manasseh, leader of the "Lost Tribes" and head of Joseph!
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkjbOguBF.v0AS3tXNyoA?p=Bush+descendant+%22King+David%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-447&x=wrt

And he’s NOT the only U.S. American not keeping the Military miles away from anything religious… :

U.S. American Christian extremists campaign for Israel:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/1326256

U.S. American Evangelists press campaigns for Christians to “fight Israel’s wars” (…) :
http://judicial-inc.biz/Hagee_iran.htm

U.S. American Evangelists radicalize SMALL CHILDREN to become “ Jihadists” ( =”Holy Warriors” ), EXACTLY like the fundamentalist Afghan talibans, but for the Christian God, and to WORSHIP to a holy George W. Bush picture…!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co1_9lR9EpM (just watch this 3 minutes 5 seconds long video!!!)
( Last up-date: I just checked it again and it says: “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation”, allegedly… but lots of people have already seen it! )

The U.S. Military’s change to a “warrior” creed encourages it’s soldiers to commit atrocities against defenceless civilians
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1603876.ece ( the full text has to be paid for )

OK… we here in Europe also had such a “phase”: 1000 years ago!

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 24, 2007 01:59 PM

Good Morning Folks,

A good lively dicussion going on here, can't help but jump in.

Several issues are at play here so I will start with the basic service rifles the M-16A2/4's and the M-4/M-4A1's. Both are of the the Eugene Stoner design and are operationaly different from the gas piston system uses in the AK-47 and the AK-74. This appears to be at the heart of the operating problems that the Stoner system has and still suffers.

In all respects with the exception of relability the M-16 is a susperior weapon. The M-16 of today is NOT the same as the Vietnam M-16, it has evolved.

The hopeful replacement for the Stoner System weapoms will be the XM-8 which was throughly tested and vented by a batallion from the 82d. AB Div. in 2005 and found to be superior to there M-16's in all ways. The XM-8 ran 15K rounds through several sample weapons without a stoppage, no Stoner design weapon has ever done that.

The test samples were sent to Ft. Detrick Md. for final approval of the brass and it was found wanting because it fail a heat test on full auto where some of the furniture melted. The fact that the M-4 can't even perform this operation was not a factor.

The reason for the love affair with the Stoner Weapons is of corse Colt Firearms who own all the rights for the weapon. The XM-8 is a product of H&K which of course is owned by Beretta who manufacture the M-9 Handgun for the Military.

Generals and Pentagon beaucrats are very much aware of their post service employment and so is Colt, don't expect the XM-8 to be adopted anytime soon.

As to the ammunitation. The 5.56 for general use is here to stay, it's virtue is only 3.5lbs. of recoil. The 7.63 with 16lbs, of recoil is far to much for our modern Military who is now about 20% female. Just for dicussion the 30-06 of the world wars and Koerea had 19lbs. of recoil.

There are two canidates out there for soldiers such as Combat and SOF who need more of a round, the are the 6.8mm SPC and the 6.5mm Grendel. Bother these round come in at 115gr vs. the 62gr. of the 5.56mm (for special uses the 5.56mm can also be had in a 77gr. Mach round) Both these rounds come in at about 9lbs. of kick and are not suitable for support troops with min. weapons training.

On to the stopping power of the various bullets. I'm likely one of the few here who has first hand experience in this but I can say that it is true at less the 50 meters that a single hit form a 5.56mm round will not bring a man down if it hits soft tissue and no bone, but surprise neither will will the 7.62mm either although it has almost three time the energy of the 5.56mm. The problem is of course the non-expandinmg Ball Bullet which the Military uses.

The solution is of course a political one not a techincal one. Let the Military use the same expanding bullets that hunters can use and kills at short range will be more common. The down side of course is the enemy will also change there bullets too and more Americans will die. Take your pick.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at February 24, 2007 01:54 PM

If you think a round kills only by tumbling, than you don't know very much about ballistics, wound mechanics, or basic physics, for that matter.

Nor do you know much about the US effort to support the muj, if you think they beat the Sovs with a few old Enfields.

Ironically, you're displaying eactly the same sortof semi-religious tribal pride in procurement that's mentioned above.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 24, 2007 08:08 AM

To “nanonymous” :

“The U.S. buys foreign small arms (not to mention larger stuff) pretty routinely”
Maybe that’s also part of the needless mistake that led this author to write this article: Buy only the best and buy it for everybody instead of creating an Armed Forces of samples!

“M9 Beretta is Italian”
The world-wide SCANDAL that was the “Great American Pistol Test” of which this European weapon emerged as a winner is still very well present in my head ( 1979 – 1982, and all the competing brands nearly suing the U.S. government over it ) !

“the 120mm main gun on the M1A1 is a Rheinmetall design, which hardly suggests the U.S. has a particular aversion to all things German.”
I also remember THAT particular “competition” ( the Abrams versus the Leopard ) , in which the Abrams emerged “victorious” ( although being only able to drive in reverse gear… ) because the U.S. Americans equalized the Leopard’s better general performance and especially it’s higher first-round-hit probability while driving with the Abrams’ track-width accordance to U.S. train transport norms…
And when the Bradley came out ( Eddy Murphy’s third movie was a comedy about it’s development: )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Defense
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086955/
the U.S. Army simply didn’t have the guts ( = the honesty ) anymore to compare it under transparent criteria for example with the German Marder…
Or when the U.S. first built and then didn’t replace the unqualifiable Sergeant York weapons system instead of buying or building the West’s best A-A tank, the German Gepard.
Etc. etc. etc.

“The ( 5,56mm ) round has stopping power”
For “some” reason the author of this “defensetech” article, Steve Trimble, pleaded for better assault rifles and indirectly maybe for more general attention to the U.S. American infantryman’s light weapons, I believe… maybe you disagree with the author, but I think that certain patriotisms cost lives, as my first U.S. American link about the stupid 5,56mm calibre also said!

Here’s ANOTHER fresh article ( only three weeks old ) straight from the battle front in Iraq about precisely the big 5,56mm problem:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=175404

Or this one here, in crass contradiction to your answer to me:
“They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits can’t be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.” ( Say again??! Is this the beginning of the fire-weapons era?! )
http://efour4ever.com/iraq.htm ( probably the most critical article on modern U.S. American infantry weapons that I’ve ever read, and comparing them to their enemies’ weapons too! )

And here’s even a whole U.S. American Internet discussion forum exclusively dedicated to bashing the 5,56mm caliber!
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=531972&page=5

Want more?

“because its muzzle velocity gives it a lot of kinetic energy.”
To my knowledge, the 5,56mm round kills only due to it’s especially designed “marginal stability” which makes it tumble through the air ( or through a body… ) upon striking anything as light as a leaf. A bullet design still not “covered” ( = outlawed ) by any Geneva Convention provision.

“the old M60 machinegun - which was based on the German MG42”
Unfortunately I’m not THAT much of an “expert”, but I believe that the MG42 was “roller-locked and recoil-operated with gas assist”(ance)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG-42#Operation ( first phrase )
whereas the U.S. American M60 was “gas-operated”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#Overview ( first phrase )

About “that army that never quite made it to Basra”: Ahem… cough… cough… that’s a dangerous line of reasoning, bearing still in mind the pictures of that other, MUCH LARGER army being evacuated from the Saigon embassy roof or even the fact that the illiterate, sandal-wearing, skinny talibans managed to defeat TWO Super-Powers’ armies, first the Soviets and now the U.S. Americans with the SAME FEW , more than 70 years old, rusting ‘Enfield’ rifles without any spare parts.

And mountainous Iran has 3,4 x times the size of Iraq ( which is still in it’s last throes ) and has ~ the SAME topography of Afghanistan, and Iranians don’t use squirrel calibres…

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 24, 2007 03:21 AM

Earl, I believe SCAR does in fact fill all those requirements in spades. All variants have high commonality, both the L and H can be configured in short, standard, and long configurations, and the design is intended to support a SAW variant easily. SOCOM has its head on straight, and SOCOM likes it alot.
Good info on it here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/smith.pdf

Posted by: Moose at February 24, 2007 12:36 AM

Thanks, Nanonymous.

Not good memories.

Posted by: Earl at February 24, 2007 12:06 AM

Earl,

"Towle Courts" is the gym at Fort Bragg - used to stand on Ardennes Street, directly across the street from the HQ buildings for the 4-325 AIR and two of the artillery battalions of the 82nd. There is - or was, I understand the 82nd area at Bragg has been completely redone - a sunken track and stadium right next to it. A disgruntled NCO from one of the 325 battalions went into the woods behind the stadium on the night before a brigade run with an AR-15 and a couple of hundred rounds of ammo, dug himself a spider hole, and waited until morning. When the brigade was formed up on the field in the stadium, he started shooting. He was eventually taken down by a couple of SF soldiers who were running down a side street, but he killed one man and wounded a whole bunch more. He got the death penalty, but it was, I understand, overturned a year or two ago on appeal. I think his name was Kreischer, or something like that. Right around Thanksgiving.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 11:35 PM

Nanonymous:

Where is Towle courts and what happened there in 1995?

Posted by: Earl at February 23, 2007 10:45 PM

It's just your personal impression. The U.S. buys foreign small arms (not to mention larger stuff) pretty routinely - the M249 SAW and the M240 machine gun were both Belgian designs and the M9 Beretta is Italian - the 120mm main gun on the M1A1 is a Rheinmetall design, which hardly suggests the U.S. has a particular aversion to all things German. And having handled both of them, I can tell you that the SAW and the 240B are both good weapons - the 240 in particular is an unbelievable improvement over the old M60 machinegun - which was based on the German MG42, and which every troop I knew was glad to see hit the road - hard to clean, prone to malfunction, poorly engineered - if ever there was a small arm nobody will miss, it's the M60. If there was an aversion to German design and engineering, the Pig would certainly explain it.

Anecdote, anecdote anecdote; please. There are always "stories" - the crazier they are, the wider their dissemination, because they're entertaining. Look, as I said below, I have SEEN men who were shot with 5.56mm rifle rounds. They were down - they weren't shot fourteen times, either. The round has stopping power, because its muzzle velocity gives it a lot of kinetic energy. I noticed your news report doesn't address that particular point.

As for Iran's military wisdom - well, pardon me if I stick with the judgment of the Army that didn't take eight years to not quite get to Basra.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 09:13 PM

Is it only my personal impression or do the U.S.A. and Great Britain historically have an irrational aversion against buying any "Heckler&Koch" products, even when their own "Super-Power" weapons occupy the World’s lowest ranks in certain categories and "H&K" products often the World’s top ranks, for long periods? The same goes also for some unexplainable prejudice against "Rheinmetall" weapons like when the U.S.A. preferred the Belgian "Minimi" over the MG3 , their reluctance against adopting the German DSR 1 from "AMP Technical Services"

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn38-e.htm
http://www.the3dstudio.com/(ws2cu4q45p3kgoar1t4gyu55)/product_details.aspx?id_product=16947 ( scroll down to access text )
http://matrix.dumpshock.com/raygun/firearms/sniper/dsr1.html
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=799

or all these psychological complexes indirectly hinted at by the article above against adopting the venerable, old, unbeatable assault rifle G3 once forever and preferrably also in the good old 7,62mm calibre ( again... ) , like IRAN wisely does?!

Just read this article here about the consequences of sticking on forever to the criminal 5,56mm calibre:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml

( Similar reports about Argentinian soldiers being hit by no less than 14x 5,56mm bullets by the British and still running for cover also returned from the Falkland War... )

The same could probably NOT happen if someone is hit by anything of 7,62mm calibre or bigger, as countless war photographs have already proved:

http://poetry.rotten.com/failed-mission/

Posted by: freefallingbomb at February 23, 2007 08:28 PM

"Field testing," not adopting - the M16 is still the general service rifle. We'll see whether they get all of the difficulties ironed out. They might - but let's face it, the fact that the M-16 has replaced a domestically produced weapon modeled on the Kalashnikov is, to my mind, a pretty definitive statement of quality. It doesn't mean something better can't be designed - it just means it hasn't been.

And with that, I'm out.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 06:03 PM

And the IDF is adopting the TAR21 Tavor, a bullpup.

Posted by: Earl at February 23, 2007 05:55 PM

You'll note the explicit and unfavorable comparisons of the SA-80 and M-16 - and that the SAS adopted the AR-15. Which latter point goes a fair way toward making the point that it's not a bad weapon, I think.

Look, the Kalashnikov is practically a fetish item in a lot of places, in part because it's aesthetically pleasing, and in part because it carries a romantic, rebellious appeal. But the frank fact of the matter is that it's not a great rifle - it's what you use if you can't get anything better. The only Western country that adopted it - and they all had plenty of them available to copy, if they wanted to; it wasn't like they had to pay Mikhail Kalashnikov royalties - was Israel, which adopted the action for the Galil, and mated it to a 5.56mm round.

And what happened to the Galil? They're phasing it out. In favor of what? A version of the M-16.
Go figure.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 05:47 PM

The L85A2 may have solved these problems.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm

Posted by: Earl at February 23, 2007 05:47 PM

You'll note the explicit and unfavorable comparisons of the SA-80 and M-16 - and that the SAS adopted the AR-15. Which latter point goes a fair way toward making the point that it's not a bad weapon, I think.

Look, the Kalashnikov is practically a fetish item in a lot of places, in part because it's aesthetically pleasing, and in part because it carries a romantic, rebellious appeal. But the frank fact of the matter is that it's not a great rifle - it's what you use if you can't get anything better. The only Western country that adopted it - and they all had plenty of them available to copy, if they wanted to; it wasn't like they had to pay Mikhail Kalashnikov royalties - was Israel, which adopted the action for the Galil, and mated it to a 5.56mm round.

And what happened to the Galil? They're phasing it out. In favor of what? A version of the M-16.
Go figure.

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 05:46 PM

The British SA-80 isn't exactly a great success story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80

Posted by: Nanonymous at February 23, 2007 05:40 PM

Thanks, Moose.

Here's an ICE agent with a Bullpup:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=400127732&size=o

I no longer remember where I got this photo, but of course no details were given on his weapon. I immediately copied it however because of the configuration. I think this is the Steyr AUG.

Many Armys around the world, UK, France, Australia, China are adopting this configuration. I agree that this is not a reason for us to do so, but I do think the Brits, Australians and Israelis at least haven given it some thought.

I can no longer imagine myself diving to the ground, ripping off a clip, then frantically trying to reload my weapon--but I'll try. OK, I get it. The clip is digging into the ground under my right armpit, and I've got to turn it sideways and upside down to get the new clip in. But, Hey, I was in the NAVY! What the hell do I know about the right way to reload an assault rifle in combat?

The helmet was modified for the same reason. (I dive to the ground, my back pushes helmet down over my nose, knocks off my glasses, I try to prop up helmet while fumbling with rifle...).

Now army surgeons tell us that they are seeing more wounds to side and back of head and neck, because helmet protection has been reduced in these areas. Marine Corps will not adopt new helmet!

But the Bullpup helps to solve the maneuverability problem in close quarters and vehicles while retaining barrel length for range and accuracy out to 300 (?) yds.

I see the SCAR (SCAR-L, SCAR-H) solves the problem of different theaters requiring different calibers.

But we still need a single weapon with interchangeable barrels for short, carbine, infantry, sniper, SAW versions. How versatile this would be, and would significantly reduce logistics requirements. Does the SCAR satisfy such a requirement?

Posted by: Earl at February 23, 2007 05:31 PM

There's got to be somebody out there who has pointed his M16 at a bad guy and pulled the trigger. What happened? Did it work? Do we need something better?

Posted by: Earl at February 23, 2007 04:40 PM

"Modern," eh? The Kalashnikov was designed shortly after the Second World War, an