Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry, Comment Group 4
Compiled by David Barth on September 15, 2008 from an article
in Military.com.
Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry.
Comment Group 1.
Comment Group 2.
Comment Group 3.
Comment Group 4.
Comment Group 5.
Comment Group 6.
Comment Group 7.
Comment Group 8.
Comment Group 9.
Comment Group 4
***** Comment ******
OK, I never heard that in war we are only supposed to wound people, but in law enforcement we are supposed to kill?
Sorry, but I have absolutely no illusions about war. In war you kill the enemy. Forget that wounding stuff.
The M-4 and the M-16 are essentially the same weapon. The only difference really is the M-4 is shorter, better for
close-quarters combat (CQC).
I could never understand the "no hollow point" thing. It always made little sense, especially when using the 9mm as a
sidearm. How is that "illegal?" What moron made that rule?
During World War II, to answer a question, the Germans and Brits both carried bolt action rifles as their primary weapon
(the K-98 and Enfield .303 respectively). The US was using the Garand, I believe.
Posted by: Brent at May 30, 2007 07:53 AM
***** Comment ******
As a former Marine and having the pleasure in serving during the first Gulf conflict, I want to comment on our
M-16A2 and our Beretta M9. The M16 is very accurate weapon. It has the capability of hitting targets at 550 meters.
However, combine a very small caliber [.223], high velocity [over 3000fps], and a fully metal jacketed projectile. What
do you get? Something that feels like an ice pick shot through your body.
Not only is there no expansion of the
projectile, the target will still be able to fight for a while. During this time he could fire his RPG and kill a
whole fire-team of Marines from his position. The target will slowly bleed to death, suffering the whole
time.
Talk about inhumane! If I had my choice at this point, and I was that Marine, I would be armed with a modified M-14.
The M-14 has the stopping power the guys need. If that target had been engaged with an M-14, he would not have been
able to fire his RPG and kill that fire-team of Marines!
It's just logic. Would I choose my .223 or my 7.62 to put an injured horse down? Get my point? In Panama, rounds
would be ground down at the tip to expose the lead. This at least allowed for some expansion to create a little more
tissue damage to help speed the termination of the enemy.
As for my side arm, it would absolutely be a .45 caliber ACP. This caliber was specifically designed for knock-down
power. We needed this during the Philippine campaign.
I remember when we first received the M9 (9mm) in 1990. We were afraid to shoot them at the range because the upper
receivers were cracking at the ejection port. The back half of the receiver was separating at recoil and killing
some Marines!
Besides being a weak caliber, this sidearm jams a lot too. Some members of a fire-team were clearing bunkers one night.
They engaged the enemy in close quarters combat (CQB). One man shot his 9mm 8 times into center mass and the guy kept
coming. He shot the guy directly in the face and the bad guy dropped on top of him. That would have never happened if
he had been using a .45 ACP.
Anyway, I think that anyone who has been in a firefight will tell you that M-16's jam and they jam a lot. The M9 jams
and it jams a lot, but we have to use what we have for now. Tell your sons and daughters to keep their weapons clean
at all times! Who knows, Maybe we will get a few M-14's and .45's to our forces in Iraq.
SEMPER-FI
Patrick L. Lannigan
pllannigan@yahoo.com
Posted by: Patrick Lannigan at May 30, 2007 07:48 AM
Comment Group 5.