Gun control is evil

[trains are bad]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...24/171144.shtml

[Halliday]

Wonderful. Kneejerk reactionary US Gov policies are now putting our troops in danger.

I suggest that the people who supported those new domestic laws be put on trial for treason!

[Jack_Dubious]

So let me get this straight....the military is issued substandard/faulty equipment, so soliders try to use civilian equipment but the civilian stuff is still not up to thier needs because of the gun laws. So the article is blaming gun laws for thier problems!?!? Wtf kind of reasoning is this?
If they want to blame someone why dont they blame the military bureacrat/bean counter who is pating himself on the back for saving the military a couple of pennys by buying cheaply made magazines. This is the real problem. Our troops are not being equipped properly and im hard pressed to see how this article can try and blame *civilian* gun laws.

The article implies that because of the gun laws there are no more companies who can make a quality magazine to thier needs or that companies dont want to make a new weapon because there isnt a civilian market.

Now tell me are there no manufacturing companies in America who wouldnt jump at the thought of getting a military contract to stamp out magazines? Are gun magazines that expensive and complex to produce?

Its probably true that there would not be that great of a profit margin for a new rifle if there isnt a civilian market for it. But on the same hand there is no civilian market for tanks, helicopters, missles, etc...yet there doesnt seem to be a problem trying to find contractors for those systems.

Now im definately not standing up for these gun laws...hell i wish i had some extra high capacity clips for my gun. But i think this article is really stretching if its trying to blame our military procurement and supply problems upon these civilian gun laws.

JDub

[Army]

Jdub, each Division, Brigade, Battalion, and Company have only so many procurment dollars to spend annually. Most already have a large allotment of issuable magazines, hence they do not, or cannot, buy any more. This leaves them with two options:

1) They carry on with 1970-1990 era made magazines which are all well used and abused. or:

2) Use needed funding for medical/tentage/vehicle maintenance/fuel to purchase a LIMITED supply of 30 round magazines (I don't think anyone even makes the 20 round type any longer).

Either option leaves you with a less than desireable situation.

In the mid nineties, we had to toss out thousands of "new-ish" magazines due to lousy manufacture. We could only refill 1/4 of that gap with new magazines with the "For Law Enforcement and Military Use Only" stamping on it. That stamping raised the price, per RIFLE magazine , $2. 9MM mags added nearly $3 to the price of the warning tag. Multiply that with hundreds if not thousands needed by a command, and you can see the problem of affording them.

No, the military does NOT have an unlimited budget.


As for the M16..it's not the rifle, which is arguably the finest battle rifle in use today, but the M885 ammo we must use. The 62gr bullet must be spun fast in order to properly stabilize, but that results in a high speed drill that simply pokes holes with minimal upset or damage. We need to return to a 55gr bullet, and slow the twist rate way down from it's current 1-7" twist, to a 1-12" twist. This will still allow superb accuracy, yet allow the bullet to instantly upset (tumble) upon contact with any object...notably, flesh. This tumbling upon entering a enemy body can and will result in terrible wounds that will incapacitate those hit. This is the twist rate of the original versions of the M16, and battle tests in Vietnam confirmed the lethality of a slow spun bullet.

And, before you say that "it's better to wound and enemy, cuz then two others must take him away"...wrong. A dead enemy cannot return fire, nor can he recuperate to fight another day. The tired old myth that the M16 was designed to wound rather than kill, is older and more worn out than even the 'Cockers shoot farther-faster stories.

Anyway, thank you Liberal America, for making my tough job harder than ever.

[Rooster]

"Now tell me are there no manufacturing companies in America who wouldnt jump at the thought of getting a military contract to stamp out magazines? Are gun magazines that expensive and complex to produce?"

No, its not a good enough contract. That is why there is a push for the military to go completely "off-the-shelf". Nobody can survive on defense contracts alone, like they did during the cold war, with politics and war conditions being fickle.

[logamus]

i agree with rooster and j dub. we should be ashamed that our government supplies our troops with substandard equipment. that is the bottom line. now, how we arrive at that bottom line is partially the fault of clinton era gun laws, but those gun laws should not be the ones bearing the total brunt of the blame. relaxing the mag laws and the like might bring back businesses to the military/police small arms market. but the quality of what the men in the field have now MUST be improved.

army, while having a slower muzzle velocity might improve the lethality of the round, i for one dont want to be shot by an m16/m4 regardless of what its shooting. :)

[RingOfScale]

Army probably has a good idea what hes talking about, so i be agreeing with him on this one :)

[Army]

Logamus, the 55gr bullet has a HIGHER velocity than the current 62gr AP bullet we are saddled with.

I'm talking about twist rate, the stabilizing spin induced by the rifling in the barrel. If it is spun too fast (which it currently is), the bullet will maintain stability through a human body. Slow the spin rate way down (1-12"), and it will upset and tumble end-over-end almost instantly upon contact with an object. Now, instead of a .224 hole in the bad guy, there is a 1/2" long buzz-saw tearing up things in a most deadly way. The bullet can no longer go straight, and will zig and zag in all directions and often enough break in two.

Early M16's from pre-1964, were reporting arms and heads being taken clean off the enemy from a single hit. That is due to the tumbling bullet.

The rifle is just fine, the beauracracy behind it sucks.

[logamus]

i still stand by my statement of not wanting to be shot by it regardless of the round fired. :)

[nippinout]

Army, have you read anything on the H&K M4?

[Army]

Nippinout, Doesn't matter who makes it. If it is a specified M4, then it will be made to mil-specs. That means while the machining may be of higher quality than most others (an H&K hallmark), the metallurgy and design will be identical to the other 20 million M16/AR15's.

[nippinout]

Nippinout, Doesn't matter who makes it. If it is a specified M4, then it will be made to mil-specs. That means while the machining may be of higher quality than most others (an H&K hallmark), the metallurgy and design will be identical to the other 20 million M16/AR15's.

Specifically, I was talking about the gas system that H&K did to the upper.

[painTech]

i votewe give everyone recoiless rocket launchers and let 'em have at it.

[MaChu]

I like the M-16, but it seems that too much political issues are involved that keep it a little behind other rifles. Personally before Vietnam the US should have adopted a rifle that you may consider obsolete, I consider it the best post war WWII rifle. The FN FAL. 7x43mm ammunition, gas operated, just plain goodness. Update it, make it, give it to our soldiers and let them have a field day.

[logamus]

the xm8



the future is just a few months away

im sure h&k would cut the us a good deal on a few of these in the meantime.