Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry, Comment Group 7
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 7
***** Comment ******
I'm shocked that someone would use the phrase "only 19%" when speaking of weapons not functioning properly in
combat.
Posted by: t. minor at May 30, 2007 03:29 AM
***** Comment ******
.40s&w
Posted by: PhilLeech at May 30, 2007 01:41 AM
***** Comment ******
When "txzen" questioned the problems associated with accessories attached to the weapons, it did not surprise me. The
lighter we go with any round, the less recoil or gas pressure there is to operate the action. Anything attached to the
weapon will affect the way the weapon recoils, and the lighter recoil will be more affected by the change in weight
distribution than a heavier weapon system. Another argument for a heavier weapons system, both the cartridge and the
weapon itself (7.62 to stay NATO standard).
In teaching marksmanship and firearms handling both to US Army personnel and civilians of ALL ages for over 20 years,
I have seen many of the problems that can cause stoppages. But I have never seen a 1/5 rate of problems, under ANY
conditions. If these reports are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, FIX IT NOW! How many of our boys and
girls have been killed because of these problems? It is bad enough that our so-called free press supports the
terrorists by pressing their agenda. Let's not kill our troops by not giving the proper weapons to kill the
enemy.
As to the issue of "illegal" and "legal" projectiles and cartridges, we have always tried to play "by the rules" and
the terrorists have always ignored them. Under conventions and treaties we cannot use Hollow Point or expanding point
projectiles because they "cause unnecessary damage" and are "inhumane". While I understand wanting to do what they do,
however, I do not ever want to drop to their level. It is too bad we cannot use the same ammunition in combat that
our police use!
God bless our troops and Commander and Chief.
Posted by: Paul Johnson at May 30, 2007 01:06 AM
***** Comment ******
I talked to a fine young Marine that was serving in Iraq. He told me the issue 9mm was a "piece of crap." He said, "it
never stopped a rag head with one shot."
Interesting to note that he was buying a Heckler & Koch HK45 from me. By the way I gave the young man a heck of a deal on the 45. I
used the 45 and M14 during my three years in the Army. They were both fine weapons.
Posted by: Iron Ranger at May 30, 2007 12:30 AM
***** Comment ******
I believe a comment above actually should have been AK-74, not 73. And no, I'm not confusing the 47 and 74. The AK-74
uses 5.45 mm rounds, which have a hollow point round in the sense that they have a full metal jacket, but there is a
hollow point in the tip under the jacket that allows them to act just like any other hollow point. In technical
terms it isn't actually a hollow point. This allowed the Russians to be Geneva Convention compliant. There are ways
around everything right?
Well, the AK-74 began its wide-spread use in Afghanistan against the muj. You see many pictures of the muj with captured
AK-74's and some with the BG-15 grenade launcher mounted.
As far as the question regarding our rifles and what they should be, I think it depends on the mission as well as what
we need, long term. We definitely need a weapon that can do better in the desert. Thank God the army decided to get rid
of that damn "break free" which attracted more dirt and dust than anything else ever devised.
But we need something with stopping power, high rates of fire, and God damn, automatic! That 3 round burst sucks big
time. They need to have actual infantry / combat arms testing this stuff as opposed to those natic or whatever troops
doing it. Pencil pushers and E-6 and E-7's should be doing the testing. Get some E-4's and 5's doing it. Hell, even
some E-3's.
Posted by: steve at May 29, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment Group 8.