Survivalist Forum banner

101 - 120 of 155 Posts

·
What... me worry??
Joined
·
304 Posts
I think we can skip the ballistics. There are probably more than 50 threads on this topic. This new gun/caliber topic has nothing to do with need, and everything to do with the “why” of EVERYTHING that comes out of Washington.

This is the usual triad... promote “research” on weapons development on the taxpayer dime, funnel the money to your buddies corporation, get kickbacks from those you funded.

How ‘bout all the fancy tag lines long forgotten with trillions spent... “The next war will be fought from space.” “The next war will be a cyber war.” And here we are with a rerun of the same ol’ crap.

We’re perfectly adept at at killing each other, but American “leadership”(?) has little/no interest in winning any war. It’s just not politically correct & the ROI is lousy.
 

·
KOAD; FOAD; ESAD
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
With a dim/lib admin defense spending gets cut terribly...gotta have some way to spend taxpayer money to keep the big industry happy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
I only did one tour in the army as a pog mechanic in the early 90s and even I know the whole shoot to wound thing is bogus. That was never even mentioned let alone trained for and I imagine it's not any different now.
The whole point was to just get hits somewhere on a torso with more hits and fewer misses obviously being better than the other way around. That's it, nothing more.
With bullets flying both directions it'd be hard enough to just get hits without getting hit yourself. You don't pick and choose where to hit and you don't design ammo to wound, that's nonsense.

As far as wounded soldiers using up more resources than dead ones that would be true after the fact if your enemies even care about their wounded at all but it changes nothing during the immediate course of battle and is not trained for in any way I've ever heard of.


As far as developing a new round this seems to come up every year or two but never actually happens. Likely has more to do with sweetheart contract deals and money and politics than it does finding the absolute best thing for the grunts to hump around.
 

·
KOAD; FOAD; ESAD
Joined
·
7,982 Posts
This is my concern as well. In a era where every decision made in Washington is a political calculation made by deep statists to marginalize their perceived domestic political enemies, I could foresee the discussion really being about figuring out how to make 5.56mm/.223 less available in bulk to the gun owning public.
Great point
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,761 Posts
Expanding the DMR program, more marksmanship training overall, acquiring more effective 5.56 ammo like the Marine Corps did, would seem to be a more effective path than new weapons systems. A bigger, heavier weapon, with a smaller loadout, might sound great for 600 yard desert engagements. But it sucks for CQB.

The Tier 1 units have all the 7.62 weapons at their disposal that they could possibly use, but what are they more often seen using? With proper training, a man with a good 5.56 weapon system and good ammunition is extremely effective at 500 yards. Giving poorly trained troops a bigger cartridge, isn't going to fix anything.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,761 Posts
This is my concern as well. In a era where every decision made in Washington is a political calculation made by deep statists to marginalize their perceived domestic political enemies, I could foresee the discussion really being about figuring out how to make 5.56mm/.223 less available in bulk to the gun owning public.
5.56 is being churned out by the tens of millions, by ammo companies foreign and domestic that hold no US Mil contracts. Any change to the issue weapon system isn't going to affect availability of 5.56 ammo, it would likely increase it.

Save the foil for something else.....


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
IMO, if we're going to put in the time and expense to develop something new then let's actually develop something new and let the requirements drive the development. Don't hamper it by having to share commonality with a beltfed or having to fit in an M4 or remaking an existing piece of brass or whatever else. Just make the best damn fighting piece we can and the best damn squad or platoon level beltfed we can and if they don't happen to share a common caliber who cares. Logistics has to supply 1001 other things to make it all work anyway, so what if it gets pared down to an even 1000 or bumped up to 1002.

"Peer or near peer adversary" is just another way of saying China and Russia, or some other proxy that would be supplied and/or supported by them. So look at what they got, what they're developing, what the may have in the future, in all areas not just hardware, and overmatch it as best we can, whatever that happens to be.

In the end I just want our guys to have every advantage we can conceivably give them without getting hampered by a bunch of BS on the way there. We could do that without a bunch of needless rehashing and lining of pockets along the way.

Basically **** or get off the pot already. Enough bleeding tax money without following through on product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
5.56 is being churned out by the tens of millions, by ammo companies foreign and domestic that hold no US Mil contracts. Any change to the issue weapon system isn't going to affect availability of 5.56 ammo, it would likely increase it.

Save the foil for something else.....


.
So you can tell us all about what companies do and don’t have contracts with the military to make 5.56 and how ammo much the contracted companies make vs companies that do. Show us you know what you’re talking about and lay out the names and the numbers... or don’t lay it out and that will show is something too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,436 Posts
if they want to dump the 5.56( which I always thought was wrong) rebarrel to 277 wolverine..greater lethality same mags

but remember

uncle sam dont give a <?+_&^%$# what we think
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
9,776 Posts
So you can tell us all about what companies do and don’t have contracts with the military to make 5.56 and how ammo much the contracted companies make vs companies that do. Show us you know what you’re talking about and lay out the names and the numbers... or don’t lay it out and that will show is something too...
Do YOU have a copy of the info you are asking him for? Otherwise how would you know he is telling the truth?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
Do YOU have a copy of the info you are asking him for? Otherwise how would you know he is telling the truth?
He’ll have to cite his sources with links so we’ll be able to check them for veracity. The burden of proof is on him because he’s the one making the claims and the insults.

I’m under no obligation to tip my hand until he sees the bet. He either has to back up his claims or fold.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
9,776 Posts
He’ll have to cite his sources with links so we’ll be able to check them for veracity. The burden of proof is on him because he’s the one making the claims and the insults.

I’m under no obligation to tip my hand until he sees the bet. He either has to back up his claims or fold.
LOL Any idiot knows there are plenty of ammo makers that don't have a contract with the US Military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HappyinID and ajole

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,359 Posts
I stated so in a previous post, from a person with an authoritative military background.
Sorry, but invoking some un-named possibly imaginary hearsay appeal to authority guy isn’t a “source” one can cite unless one is a member of the lamestream media.

And what he stated, is that wounding was preferential from a pragmatic standpoint, because it immediately removed more personnel from combat, than just merely killing personnel.
So he DIDN’T say it was policy, doctrine, a procurement specification, a known fact in planning, or anything else beyond an opinion. ITS JUST HIS OPINION.

Yeah...so he’s still wrong.

It doesn’t immediately remove ANYONE from combat, and as intimated by myself and others above...wounded people don’t just lay down and scream for help. Far too often, they keep shooting and killing people.

Excuse me. I meant the Hague convention.
I know, no sweat. (y)


The 1899 Hague convention was signed by 26 nations, that included the United States.
Sure.

But we did NOT sign Declaration IV,3 which is the part about the bullets. Look it up.
List of parties to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - Wikipedia

Sometimes I forget the generaly very low level of ballistic literacy here compared to normal gun forums....you guys will argue back and forth for pages on what amounts to old wives tales. It's like going back in time 15 or 20 years to the old days of dial up internet and the old bulletin board forms.

Seriously, it's not going to happen.

Why? Because its not important. In warfare for the last fifty years you could outfit every solider with a revolver and the war would have ended the same way. Not of course on a PERSONAL level, but wars haven't been won or lost because of soldiers with guns for a good 100 years.
You are completely right, but for NONE of the reasons you quoted.

That I take the word of an American Brigadier General?
Opinion. You took the OPINION of some guy.
He was wrong.


He’ll have to cite his sources with links so we’ll be able to check them for veracity. The burden of proof is on him because he’s the one making the claims and the insults.

I’m under no obligation to tip my hand until he sees the bet. He either has to back up his claims or fold.
WTF? Veracity that MANY companies don’t have a contract to make 5.56 for some military?
Are you serious? GTF out of here with that BS. That’s ludicrous. Are you some freaking blue check fact checker? You know darned well that there are ammo makers that don’t have military contracts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
255 Posts
LOL Any idiot knows there are plenty of ammo makers that don't have a contract with the US Military.
WTF? Veracity that MANY companies don’t have a contract to make 5.56 for some military?
Are you serious? GTF out of here with that BS. That’s ludicrous. Are you some freaking blue check fact checker? You know darned well that there are ammo makers that don’t have military contracts.
Translation: No, you can’t back up your assertions or your insults and now you’re running away with your tail between your legs when called, and snarling over your back as you do so.

It doesn’t matter if there are “some” manufacturers who don’t have contracts. The assertion that was made is that there are so many manufacturers who aren’t associated with military contracts that there would be no major effect on the domestic supply of 5.56 should the military contracts or military mass production go away.

The burden of proof is on you to offer evidence that the domestic supply won’t be effected.

So prove your assertion if you can. So far you can’t. Don’t be mad at me just because I called you out for arrogantly running in an hurling insults at me from of a position you can’t back up when challenged

Here’s a hint: a thinking man would do well to figure out exactly where the domestic supply comes from; how much comes from Lake City vs other plants, then how many of those other plants are under contract and which ones aren’t. And roughly how much the non-military-supplying plants put out relative to the domestic consumption.

Surely you didn’t arrogantly throw insults at me without having any reliable numbers concerning the above did you?

Better be warming up your google fingers...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,761 Posts
So you can tell us all about what companies do and don’t have contracts with the military to make 5.56 and how ammo much the contracted companies make vs companies that do. Show us you know what you’re talking about and lay out the names and the numbers... or don’t lay it out and that will show is something too...

My aren't you dramatic.....

Federal no longer runs Lake City, Winchester now holds the contract. If you notice, Federal part numbers for 5.56 have been slightly changing to coincide with product produced in Anoka, rather than LC. Just as Winchester was making plenty of 5.56 before they won the current LC contract. Remington was all but non-existent in the US Mil market. PMC, Wolf, PPU, Sellier & Bellot, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are non factors in the US Mil market. It doesn't take holding the production figures and contracts for all the ammo companies in the world in your hand, to know there's plenty of 5.56 capacity available to supply the US commercial market, even if the US Mil was to adopt another caliber.


But if you prefer your tinhat conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing, by all means.... enjoy yourself.

Lemme guess...... you thought Homeland Security bought up all the .40 ammo a few years ago so the public couldn't get any too....
 
101 - 120 of 155 Posts
Top