Posted: 5/27/2008 5:26:08 PM EDT
I just read an article about enemy combatants being shot with m855 and not being stopped. One person was using an M14 ans said that it did a much better job of stopping the enemy. Bring on the flames.
|
What does dildoing a donkey have to do with the question? |
|
That is better than the round to kill ratio in WWII and Vietnam. Look those figures up, the improvement of effectiveness of the U.S. Military is startling. |
I am sure they are correct and it doesn't work. I therefore volunteer to take all of the M855 off the gubments hands for only a small handling fee, because I am just that kind of guy. |
Actually, I believe in this case, it's "equestrian erotica." |
Ummm... I foresee a visit from JAG if word gets out... using non-issued or modified ammo is a big no-no for US forces AFAIK (Laws of Land Warfare and all that... not that I necessarily agree). |
|
What's strange is the article goes out of the way to say the round was designed to take down platoons of parachuting, armored, commies during the cold war. So why is it ineffective in taking down a guy in a dress? Oh wait, I know... You need to fucking aim the weapon. |
you've never seen clerks II? |
|
5.56 is NOT legal for deer is just about the entire US...doesn't kill deer "in a humane manner". WHY does the government think it's an effective man-stopper? I don't own a firearm chambered in 5.56 (OK hang me for a heretic!). My "big" rifles are in .308, 7mm RemMag, and 45-70 Govt (hey, wait a minute...45-70 GOVERNMENT?!?...does THAT mean that the round was an ISSUE cartridge once-upon-a-time?!?). A bigger, slower bullet will do more damage every time than a smaller, faster bullet will. Does this come as a shock to anybody?!? |
you know that round count includes in theater training right? |
I'm willing to bet that has a lot to do with the advent and wide issue of red-dot, quick-aquisition sights (Aimpoint, EOTech, etc.). |
Deer are much tougher to kill than humans. Good luck on 300 rounds of 45-70 government. Hell godd luck on 50. I thought the 5.56 was designed to wound, so more combatants would be used? Have you ever actually met a person shot by a 5.56? If so did they say it was just a "tea and crumpets" experience? Do perhaps those using 308 take better shots because they are OPs and have less ammo to waste? |
Not me. I've killed too many deer and pigs with one. I KNOW how deadly it is. One thing that is a constant in these threads. EVERYONE who has ever killed an animal and then inspected the damage done believes it is plent potent. The naysayers [like the ones in this thread] have not, yet belittle the round. That should tell everyone all they need to know. 
|
Incorrect. 5.56 is not named. 22 caliber weapons are named. Big difference, and complete dishonesty on your part to fail to clarify this. |