Should we arm U.S. military servicemen with full power rifles?
December 11th, 2009 by eranio
I hear complaints from soldiers about the effectiveness of the .223/5.56 x 45mm round. Some of them tell me that if given a choice, they would rather use a .308 battle rifle. If we armed all of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan with full powered rifles chambered in 30-06 or .308 would our odds of winning the war improve?
A full powered cartridge is way more deadly than a .223.
Posted in Military Rifles
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Exactly how many of the living 24 million Vets have complained to you about the M16/4.
You left out the Russians also have a 5.56 round weapon too.
You can carry more rounds. You can carry more rounds. You can carry more rounds.
The design goes back to the 50′s, has worked (there were definite snags in Viet Nam) pretty darn well since the late 60′s. It is designed to kill beyond 25 meters. Urban fighting presents a problem in that the rounds go right thru a guy in close quarters while the 7.62 will knock you on your dead butt. That has been the complaint. Lot’s of dead Victor Charles, Cubans, Haitians, Panamanians, Colombian drug dealers and criminals taken down by Police in the US using the AR15.
Watched a guy shoot a telephone pole in 2 with less than a 20 round clip. Same guy chipped away at a piece of concrete simulating a high curb and took out the clown ( a cantaloupe) hiding behind it also with less than 20 rounds. Same guy hit a pumpkin on a pole @ 1000M. When I drive past that range going to Montery I still stare at and am in awe of that shot. He hit it on the 4th shot, the 2nd 4th were tracers. He was in Viet Nam just 8 months earlier working as a sniper…at the very bitter end.
Edit: Mendoza I strongly suggest that you actually read The Hague Conventions, they define the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare. The Geneva Conventions are also a must read as no such restricitions are in either. The Geneva Convetions make no talk of the rules of War. They concern the treatment of specific groups of people
You cannot use a round designed to make a person suffer. They must be designed to kill….can you say full metal jacket?? You can shoot a 105mm gun at a human. You CAN fire at anything/anyone acting in a combatant role INCLUDING places of worship, schools, hospitals and children.
The spread of Bravo Sierra is noticed in this forum!!!
SSG US Army 73-82
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I don’t think that they are meant to defend themselves too vigorously, if you know what I mean. That’s why we have body armor and they have AK-47′s but wear only turbans and wool. It must be owing to the American sense of fair play, I honestly don’t know. What about RPG’s- Jesus, why don’t we use them suckers take out helicopters, armored vehicles, you name it.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I am not familiar with the different weaponry but I cant imagine there being a huge difference…And this fighting will continue until we go into the tribal areas and wipe them out….Pakistan is covering for these crazies which is why the insurgency continues on and off…
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
well, most of the snipers currently serving in Iraq and Afganistan, posses the Barret m-107 or m-98 .50 cal, most riflemen posses the
M-9 Barreta or the M-1911 and an m-16A2 or an m-4 carbine, but even with a 30-06 or a .308 rifle, our odds wouldnt really increase or decrease.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
the reason is because of the rules or laws of war in the Geneva Conventions. the U.S. and many other countries abide by these rules. for example, one law says we cant fire on medics or vehicles with a red cross. Another is the rounds we use in our weapons. Terrorists use a 7.62 round in their AK-47 compared to the 5.56 round we use and since they dont abiide by the Geneva conventions they can be as lethal and ruthless as they want.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
you know not what you are talking about.
what have YOU ever been shot by?
Your terminology is incorrect, and your information is unsubstantiated.
What branch, and what unit did you see combat in?
December 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
No. The current weapon is fine and is plenty deadly. The 5.56 round is much easier to support logistically than the .30 round. The newer AK’s are chambered in 5.45mm anyway so your thesis is flawed. In specific applications a larger round is very useful and the US military has such weapons in the inventory now. The DSM rifle is 5.56 and I have never heard a complaint about it’s effectiveness.