Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry, Comment Group 5
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 5
***** Comment ******
The 9mm pistol is not a stopper even if used with a 124 gr. bullet at 1250 fps. Leaves nice holes. Stops a
person only if it hits a vital organ such as brain or heart, or hits spinal. Otherwise, the tango (terrorist) may
function for a while and bleed out later, after the immediate situation. There are plenty of police reports of
multiple 9mm hits with hollow points (HPs), and bad guys still moving and deadly.
The whole M16 family is perfectly engineered but used in an imperfect world. Dust and powder residue make it prone to
only moderate reliability. It is light, and an operator can carry a lot of rounds.
If 4 stars had to plod routinely, both weapons would have been replaced years ago with something new. Lots of new tech
should be tested. New ammo alone won't solve the problem. Most handgun hollow points (HPs) don't reliably expand due to
lack of velocity. These are not offensive weapons for the 21st century. They are in the system. They are OK for law
enforcement as defensive weapons, used sparingly. Insurgents are not covered by Geneva Conventions. Don't apply it
to an unconventional enemy's benefit. Be realistic: the best small arms are tank rounds and 500 pounders. The rest
are last resort and the question should be tactical. Why fight an enemy on the least effective level when maximum
force should be the norm?
God bless our troops.
Posted by: older vet at May 30, 2007 07:31 AM
***** Comment ******
My experience goes back 50 years, and may be a tad out of date. I carried and used the following: M-1 Rifle, M3 Grease
gun, 1911 Colt .45, S&W Victory Model .38, M-14 Rifle, BAR [Browning Automatic Rifle], M-1817, M-19,
and (.30 cal.) M and M-2 (.50 cal.) machine guns.
All weapons systems are a compromise, and all have design flaws. The early 1911's were called thumb Breakers for good
reason, and until the Series 80, were prone to firing when dropped. The M-3 Grease gun had a very poorly designed safety,
and there was no way to determine whether it was properly engaged.
By the way, I still carry a hundred year old M-1905 .38 S&W Special for self defense when out on the road.
Posted by: Ed Begley at May 30, 2007 07:16 AM
***** Comment ******
The operational mindset plus international law prevent use of hollow points in combat where the goal is to wound. The
same international law dictates the treatment of prisoners. Combatants are not expected to fight to the
death.
However, in law enforcement it is assumed that the combatants are going to fight to the death, and hollow points are
used to totally incapacitate the enemy. In police-style military engagements the lines get muddied. The .45 was first
used in the Philippines, pre WW1, during a similar style police action, and would now, as then, be highly
effective.
Posted by: martea at May 30, 2007 07:10 AM
***** Comment ******
I know the Germans produced some serious weapons during WWII, like the MG42, the MG48, and the Walther P38.
Does anyone know what the infantry carried in North Africa as a rule? How about the Brits and the US? Were their weapons
less subject to malfunctions, or were they all faced with the same issues our troops see in Iraq?
I'm not a weapons expert by any stretch. I'm just looking for successful function repeatability as a solution for
selecting the appropriate weapon for that environment. Often times the engineering marvel is the first thing to fail.
Compare the multiple malfunctions of the Luger (An engineer's wet dream) to the reliability of the Walther P38 in the
same environments.
NOW I wish I knew more about weapons! I'm looking forward to reading that report now.
Posted by: ]|-|[avok at May 30, 2007 06:41 AM
Comment Group 6.