Author Topic: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets  (Read 1960 times)

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2008, 10:25:08 AM »
What about mixed loadouts that included frangible/hollowpoint/etc rounds?  It seems that it'd be cheaper, easier to roll out fast, wouldn't require re-quals, and could be done with existing infrastructure.

Hollowpoints violate the Geneva convention, I think.

BTW- I've known of a few fatalities at the hands of a 223, and some of them at close range- and I have never heard of a 223 round passing cleanly through the body. In fact it's why some police juristictions wou't use the 308- it WILL pass through a body, making collateral damage more likely.

Offline texasmom

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6078
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2008, 10:26:01 AM »
When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power.  They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him.  It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.

I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.

That doesn't make any sense.  Why would you shoot at someone without intending to kill them?
<S> Easy8
<S> Mac

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2008, 10:27:15 AM »
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23944
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2008, 10:29:45 AM »
That doesn't make any sense.  Why would you shoot at someone without intending to kill them?

because of:

It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.

The basic thought behind that is:

- He's out of the fight
- He draws attention and lowers morale of his buddies (screaming in pain)
- Someone has to give him first aid, he has to be transported back for further treatment
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline texasmom

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6078
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2008, 10:29:47 AM »
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
Yeah, but that's not a REAL answer... that's just some sorry bellybutton excuse to explain away why you wouldn't kill someone when they get get shot.  "oh... it takes more people to take care of someone injured." 

If you're engaged... seems like you finish killing the folks shooting at you first... then go back & drag your wounded to treatment.

<S> Easy8
<S> Mac

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23944
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2008, 10:35:30 AM »
Yeah, but that's not a REAL answer...

It is.

Besides that, a war is more than just a single firefight. May sound cynical, but a dead soldier is often "cheaper" than a wounded one - at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2008, 10:39:42 AM »
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
Of course, that presumes your enemy places ANY sort of value upon staying alive--our newest adversaries weren't in mind 35ish years ago when the M16 was being debated
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline sluggish

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2008, 10:40:53 AM »
Quote
at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.

But that's not the kind of enemy we're dealing with here.

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17775
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2008, 10:43:23 AM »
This is weird. I was the third person to post in this thread.
I know I posted because I remember exactly what I said.

"Would be easier just to issue some sort of fragmentation round. no?"

But the post is gone.


Very strange
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2008, 10:47:20 AM »
It is.

Besides that, a war is more than just a single firefight. May sound cynical, but a dead soldier is often "cheaper" than a wounded one - at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.

Yup, that's also why anti-personnel mines are designed not to kill people, but only to blow their feet off.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline sluggish

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2008, 10:50:54 AM »
Yup, that's also why anti-personnel mines are designed not to kill people, but only to blow their feet off.
I personally like the spring-loaded ones that spring up and explode at waist height.  There are some real Jeffery Damer type weapons designers out there, aren't there?

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2008, 10:51:18 AM »
This is weird. I was the third person to post in this thread.
I know I posted because I remember exactly what I said.

"Would be easier just to issue some sort of fragmentation round. no?"

But the post is gone.


Very strange
I grabbed those packets as they were coursing through the internet and squeezed the life out of them, Drediok.  Then, with cool, methodical detachment, I sliced them open, extracted the salient ideas, then discarded their little, spent electronic corpses.  My thousand meg stare piercing the dark void of the networks, I swung upwards through the routers and switches between me and the BBS then grabbed onto this thread.  With nothing but my ol' Leatherman, I etched my 'frangible' message above, carefully stabbing out the dots above each "i" and surgically cutting the crosses into my "t"s. 

Afterwards, like a ghost, I disappeared into the ether to stalk my next prey.

And that's how it's done.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2008, 10:53:43 AM »
For the type of house to house fighting that is going on in Iraq they need to just ditch the M-16's and M-4's completely. Issue everyone a 12 gage (00 buck) and a .45 pistol. Better yet go old school and give the infantry guys a weapon that has been proven in battle many times over for accuracy, stopping power, and reliability. The M1A1 Thompson .45.

The problem with the 5.56mm "ball" is that it sucks at close range. Anyone who has ever used it in combat can tell you that. Typical engagement range over in Iraq is less than 100 yards. A Thompson will drop anyone at 100 yards.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2008, 11:44:07 AM »
I say just keep the troops out and napalm the snot outta the place... But when the boots hit the ground to finish off survivors, thompsons and M-14s for everyone!
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Re: Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2008, 12:00:39 PM »
But then you, sir, are a nutter.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.