The Ten Manliest Firearms

[lasersailor184]

None.  But by your logic that automatically means I'm wrong and you can dismiss anything I say.

[Xargos]

I prefer the .308 myself, but a .223 will put an inmate down just as fast as the .308.  I just think you underestimate the .223 for use on humans.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Xargos
I prefer the .308 myself, but a .223 will put an inmate down just as fast as the .308.  I just think you underestimate the .223 for use on humans.

I do not.  I have history on my side.  The same problem has haunted the .223 from its conception to today.  It will severely wound the target, however it does not incapacitate.  

Like I said before, the bullet could fly out and literally tickle the target.  If the target is unable to fight back from laughing too hard, then you are happy.


Sure, it killed many vietnamese, iraqi's, somalis...  However, it took 2-4 shots to incapacitate the target.  That's not counting the problem that M4's would encounter due to the short barrel and lack of muzzle velocity.



But, any way you cut it, the M1 Garand / M14 were better guns and way more manly then the AR15 / M16.

[Xargos]

You need to study warfare tactics.  It's better to wound the enemy so he becomes a burden on the enemies resources, that is one reason among many the .223 was chosen.  Other reason are that you can carry more ammo.  Range is not a big issue because it was found that most soldiers would wait until the enemy was well within the range of their weapon before they opened fire anyway.  Most battlefield wound are the cause of indirect fire or snap shots, not aimed shots and most are in the arms or legs so a bigger round would not have made that much of a difference.  There are other reasons but I don't feel like writing a book.

And you need to figure out what the real agenda is of the people you've been getting your info from.

P.S.  Weapons for the military are made by the lowest bider, a fact of LIFE that will never change.  And you as a extreme right-wing republican should understand that quality is not as important as profit.

[lasersailor184]

That wounding is preferred to killing is bull****.  It ONLY applies to civilized armies.

The last time we fought a civilized army was WW2.  Every single war since then has been against extremists who either did not care about their wounded, or would simply become enraged by it.  And from the state of things in the world, it doesn't not seem that this fact will change any time soon.


While they could carry more rounds of .223, we've already established that 1 .223 =/= 1 .308 .  So while you have more rounds, you have less fire power (assuming you are carrying less then 3x the amount of bullets you would with a .308).

[Xargos]

.308 is fine if you can hit your target.  Chances are your aim is going to be off a little in battle because of the amount of adrenalin pumping through your veins.  You would be better off hitting your target with a small round then missing him with the bigger one.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, I abandoned this thread.  

Only after thousands of US troops died after their M16's failed them in multiple ways did the government issue cleaning kits, issue new m16's with better bullets, and fix the bullet.

The ONLY modification in Nam was the addition of a forward assist.    "Thousands died?"   You have more bullchit than a barnyard.    The USAF was the first to use the M16.   The Army had a few hundred in use at the start of the Vietnam War Laser.    Their conclusion?   "Excellent weapon (as ANY) when clean, but what is needed is a forward assist."   The addition of the Forward assist in 1966 was named M16A1.   That design was unchanged until 1982, with the A2.    My shooting buddy used an M203, and shot Expert in the Army.  

The ammo used in the "experimental stage was limited production."   Supply could not meet demand.   The "bullet" was not changed either.   When first delivered, Colt rang out that "the M16 is almost self cleaning by design".    When the cartridges were made, they used different powder quantities than the "test ammo".    The new ammo loads fouled the NON-CHROMED barrel, more.    

So again, "How did thousands die when only a few hundred or less M16's were used before 1966?"

Xargos, he'll keep coming back with yet another website.    Forgive him, he's not that bright.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
That wounding is preferred to killing is bull****.  It ONLY applies to civilized armies.

You are clueless.

[Xargos]

He's either jerking or chain or he's lead a real insulated life.

[Chairboy]

You know, it's fine to be wrong.  We've all made statements at one point that were in error that we got called on, and one measure of our character is how we responded.  For the most part, at least here in the O'Club, most of us have acknowledged it, learned from them, and have been smarter going forward.

Then there are folks that choose a different path...

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You know, it's fine to be wrong.  We've all made statements at one point that were in error that we got called on, and one measure of our character is how we responded.  For the most part, at least here in the O'Club, most of us have acknowledged it, learned from them, and have been smarter going forward.

Then there are folks that choose a different path...

Laser "leads the misguided on that different path".

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The ONLY modification in Nam was the addition of a forward assist.    "Thousands died?"   You have more bullchit than a barnyard.    The USAF was the first to use the M16.   The Army had a few hundred in use at the start of the Vietnam War Laser.    Their conclusion?   "Excellent weapon (as ANY) when clean, but what is needed is a forward assist."   The addition of the Forward assist in 1966 was named M16A1.   That design was unchanged until 1982, with the A2.    My shooting buddy used an M203, and shot Expert in the Army.  

The ammo used in the "experimental stage was limited production."   Supply could not meet demand.   The "bullet" was not changed either.   When first delivered, Colt rang out that "the M16 is almost self cleaning by design".    When the cartridges were made, they used different powder quantities than the "test ammo".    The new ammo loads fouled the NON-CHROMED barrel, more.    

So again, "How did thousands die when only a few hundred or less M16's were used before 1966?"

Xargos, he'll keep coming back with yet another website.    Forgive him, he's not that bright.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

I'm sorry, what was that Mash?  That was the sound of me embarrassing you.  It's OK though, I know that Ad Hominem attacks are your favorite when you can not top anyone in an argument.  If Ad Hominem attacks don't quiet your target, you usually resort to caps to simulate yelling to try to diminish your target that way.

But we all know that Mash's destruction is not enough.  So here is more:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html (<--Difficult to follow, mainly focuses on the 5.56 bullet and competition. )
http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/evolution.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-history.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-variants.htm

And this is my Mash Domination dance:



I'm sorry, I'm not that good at dancing.


I also want to point out that demand for the bullet wasn't driven by want of it, but by necessity.  I read somewhere that the Army was firing off around 10,000 bullets to every 1 hit on the enemy.  I could be off on the 10,000 #, I'll have to dig it up again.

Also, from the conception of the XME16e1 through the M16A2, some 3.6 million guns were made.

Up to 1968, when the M16A1 was issued to everyone, roughly 16,550 american soldiers had died (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html), where as there were 409,111 american troops in vietnam.  While I may be exaggerating by saying thousands, I have read reports of entire platoons that had been over run and killed.  Afterwards they discovered many jammed and disassembled M16's among the dead.

[Masherbrum]

the "X" was the experimental version.   Wow, you keep posting websites.   Pure facts mean more.   You really are clueless.   The only one you are embarrassing is yourself.

[lasersailor184]

Wait, are you telling me that you're not smart enough to actually go onto the websites?  And that I need to copy them out for you?

[Masherbrum]

I deal in first-hand accounts and FACTS.   A webpage is just that, SOMEONE'S OPINION.