U.S. Military Reviewing Complaints of Weak Bullets

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Marine1, May 29, 2008.

  1. Marine1

    Marine1 Guest

  2. samuel

    samuel G&G Newbie

    After over 40yrs of hearing it,do you really think they will do anything about it? sam.

  3. TXplt

    TXplt Gun Toting Boeing Driver Forum Contributor

    Saw this while transiting Anchorage--no one I know was in favor of going to the 9 from the .45 (although the 9 was a step up from the 38's). Beretta makes a good pistol; it's just that low-performance ammo (i.e. non-expanding) isn't a good stopper without excellent hits. Thought we learned that from the 19th century and went to the .45. But, alas, we continue to re-learn lessons

    IMHO, there's no good reason not to always be using optimal ammo in a war situation. Given the broad spectrum of weaponry we use, classifying one type of ammo inhumane, etc., is wholly arbitrary and pretty silly. Effective is what we want.

    Wars should be fought with 2 objectives in mind:


    The Geneva Conventions aren't ever to be applied unilaterally--they are, effectively a "deal with the devil" -- a deal with your enemy respecting the rights of prisoners who are expected to be repatriated at the end of the conflict (i.e. if you don't badly hurt our prisoners, we won't badly hurt yours). This can be a good thing, if applied and verified by both sides with regards to prisoners. However, limitations on weapons and method of wars (other than the pragmatic interests of your nation in the future world reference destruction of things you might not want to destroy, as well as stepping back and realizing your actions may be counterproductive to the war in the long run) result only in needless deaths on your side. We learn this over and over again.

    If you win, your method doesn't matter. If you lose, your method really doesn't matter either simply because you're now at the mercy of the victor. History will now be shaped by him. History is always written by the side who is successful. It's always impossible to have any "moral high ground" in any war simply because both sides think they're right. You can use good and evil and morals to rally your troops and nation; however, the concept of who's "good" and "bad" for many generations will depend on who wins.

    There are times to consider constraints on war--civilian target bombing strengthened (not weakened) resolve on both the German (British nighttime bombing of German Cities) and British (Battle of Britain) sides during WWII. Destroying Kyoto would have resulted in an unwanted an irreplacable loss to the world (at the expense of potentially prolonging the war). On the other hand, incendary raids on Japan and bombing of both military and civilian targets resulted in the successful conclusion of the war. This is counter-intuitive, but true. Civilian targeting also fosters the winning of insurgency type conflicts--reference the successful campaigns by W.T. Sherman and Pershing. So it always depends on the war, and the situation you face (which is not necessarily the situation you want). We seem to have forgotten this in post WWII worlds, thinking the "rules of war" will work to win hearts and victory on our side. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. At best, it protracts a war (with an eventual successful outcome on your side) at the costs of needless deaths to your country. At worst, you both have your own folks die and still lose the war.

    In short, we always need to use the best weapons restrained only by what unwanted destruction would do to our cause (this doesn't depend on what anyone thinks of us). Same as for tactics--we pragmatically target who and what will result in our winning of the war (Whoever and Whatever that might be). If our tactics aren't working, we switch our tactics. We fight the war we get, not always the war we want. War's not a super bowl, and we can't fight it as such.
  4. If the military would simply ask Turbo they would know that the 5.56 is the greatest thing since sliced bread... and save GOBS of money in the process.