Rattler Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 I'd .....rather use the M1 A man after my own heart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 LOL. Different kind of flame war. I have heard of a lot of spec ops guy's preferring the Ak47 for "behind the lines" work because of the simple fact that it's much easier to "borrow" ammo from your opponents when you use the same weapon, and well, most of our opponents use the Ak. It's also not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunus Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 I have heard of a lot of spec ops guy's preferring the Ak47 for "behind the lines" work because of the simple fact that it's much easier to "borrow" ammo from your opponents when you use the same weapon was under the impression that it was at close range where the 5.56 really shined piss-poor penetration of intervening media (read windshields, car doors, walls etc.) ~S~ BadAim, Mate, as far as being the Real Deal, in this day and age anyone who has been in the Army or the Marines for more than two years is the Real Deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 ~S~ Tribunus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunus Posted August 17, 2009 Author Share Posted August 17, 2009 God Bless X-Box playing, Zombie killing, 18 year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 17, 2009 Share Posted August 17, 2009 God Bless X-Box playing, Zombie killing, 18 year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_O_A_D Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 OK, this is ignorant, bringing them out, to something like this, will only heighten the fever of the Anti gun followers to push harder to take them away. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers Amanda Lee Myers And Terry Tang, Associated Press Writers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyKnight Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Ha-ha, just imagine how many secret service members were keenly watching these guys closely. "Standby! One of the them is reaching up to... no wait, stand-down, he's just picking a bogey out of his nose." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 In the land of the free and the home of the brave, even stupid people are allowed to carry guns. I could almost get behind a minimum IQ requirement for Firearm ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunus Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 IDIOTS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erco Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah, serious idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunus Posted August 18, 2009 Author Share Posted August 18, 2009 But I think you guys like the small stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Yeah, serious idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold_Gambler Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Interesting thread... I've seen this topic in several different forums but they've always devolved into shit-storms by page 2- so kudos to all posters. Quick question from a gun ignoramus to TRIBUNUS: I was surprised by your comment re: tumbling vs poking round wounds... I thought it was only in Hollywood movies that someone could take a round in a limb without a hitting a bone (say through the upper thigh) and "stay in the fight" Arnie-style. Is it incorrect to think that any wound other than a graze would incapacitate an opponent to the point they could no longer stay in the fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 While I'm no expert, I have studied terminal ballistics quite extensively, so I'll try to offer a preliminary explanation. Unfortunately, the answer defies explanation. One man will fall on the ground and cry for mama with a minor flesh wound (some even die), another will fight on for 10 or 15 minutes with a fatal wound. Case in point: the "Miami incident" where a man (An army trained street hardened criminal) killed 4 FBI agents and wounded several more after receiving an unsurvivable wound. In general though, a person fighting for their life will be hopped up on endorphins and adrenaline and is capable of absolutely amazing things, including fighting on with fatal wounds, walking on broken legs, and seemingly rising from the dead This is why the "pros" insist on reliable, powerful ordinance to get the job done. It is quite easy to kill a human being, it is somewhat more problematic to prevent him from killing you back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediteo Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 @ CG Anatomically, the human body is quite fragile, yet can withtand several bullets. Remember the pope (John paul II) took a couple in the chest, yet survived. Assuming no major nerve centre (should as the shoulder or groin, bone or the arterial system is damaged, survival is quite likely considering modern medicine. The major organs are all within the chest cavity, and some can withstand damage without. The liver, spleen and heart/lungs are all blood-heavy organs that will lead to exsanguination when damaged. I have no idea of how this relates to a combat situation, but I would guess that without a critical hit to major systems, short term fighting may be possible. Funnily enough I had this exact same conversation with a medical student friend of mine. The human body is quite fascinating, fragile yet still damage resistant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer57 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Damn, Tribunus always has the best stories on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Tribunus, do they allow "special" guys to carry these? Bullets passing thru are a waste of energy - deliver it all to the target. One hit, one kill, or at least a really f*cked up guy who has a big hole in him. MUCH safer for bystanders btw. Since we aren't fighting a nation state's regular army, the Geneva crap shouldn't apply. After the Blackhawk down incident in Somalia, I can't believe the US military still uses those lousy FMJ hole punchers on insurgent fanatics. As far as I know, because of the Geneva Conventions as you stated, Carl, most nations' armies only use FMJ ammo. The use of JHP rounds would be a stooping of the military in question to the same level as that of the insurgents. I know it might not be the safest for the soldiers in question, but the professionalism of our militaries is part of what makes them so trustworthy in the eyes of the rest of the nations of the world, at least the ones that count. As for special forces, I wouldn't know myself. I will ask a buddy of mine in JTF2, if he will/can tell me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 While I understand and support the Geneva convention I always thought it was kinda silly to make believe warfare is in any way civilized. But that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAim Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I thought that this might be a good place to post a little something for those of us who are into chicks with guns, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooly Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 While I understand and support the Geneva convention I always thought it was kinda silly to make believe warfare is in any way civilized. But that's just me. I doubt the taliban give two hoots about the Geneva convention so why should the UN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jediteo Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Well, legally, a military whose nation had signed the several different agreements are supposed to follow them regardless of the opposition. Quite complicated thing, but quite interesting once you read the documents. I have not the read the hollow-point thing yet, but for mines and incendiaries it's quite strict. However enforcement is a whole other issue altogether. I am doing my disseration on cluster munitions, and have been reading a bit of the UN declarations on conventional weaponry. Even though the taliban may disregard all the rules, the national militaries will have to uphold their standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 While I understand and support the Geneva convention I always thought it was kinda silly to make believe warfare is in any way civilized. But that's just me. Well, a lot of the Conventions have to do with the humane treatment of prisoners and civilians. You can't use civilians to clear minefields, for instance. You'd be surprised with the brutality of warfare prior to 1900 towards prisoners and civilians. Rounding people up into buildings and burning them down and such. Much of the Geneva Conventions are now used in wars crimes tribunals such as Rwanda, and Kosovo, and Srebrenica. Someone has to have guidelines for troops and commanders as to what is and is not allowed. Some people just don't have any boundaries when it comes to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattler Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 While I understand and support the Geneva convention I always thought it was kinda silly to make believe warfare is in any way civilized. But that's just me. I doubt the taliban give two hoots about the Geneva convention so why should the UN? Like I said before, it's not about the Taliban, it's about us. We can't stoop to their level, otherwise we lose our moral basis for operating as we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smash Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Uncle ted ROCKS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3326d5bbcb89fe2bcd3937259933ad13.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.