Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry, Comment Group 8
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 8
***** Comment ******
I will hold comments until I read the whole report. But there are two things I am looking for.
First. Out of the Pool of those surveyed, how many were Combat Arms (11, 13, & 31 series) vs. Support units (87E's & 92
series)? I do know that all soldiers can be equally attacked, but Combat arms may have a higher instance of direct
combat usage / experience.
Secondly. Compared to what? It's nice that the soldiers seem to be more or less positive about the M4's. But have
these individuals been given XCR's, G36's, FN SCAR L/H's, or XM8's to have a fully objective idea that they have the
best weapon available in THEIR eyes? I'm sure the Germans loved their 98k's but did they want the Garand
instead?
Also, I find it odd that Big Green seems to be avoiding rifles that have fast change barrel systems.
Could it be that the pressure of a minimal cost for a caliber change over is what they are afraid of? The 6.5 MPC
seems real inexpensive if all you have to do is buy new barrels!
Posted by: John at May 29, 2007 07:45 PM
***** Comment ******
"Can't necessarily sign" WTF? The AQ and other insurgents in Iraq, or Taliban in Afghanistan, not only wouldn't
but don't even have an identifiable conceivable signing authority. And each routinely commits gross violations of
every military code ever written. Not least of which is routinely wearing civilian dress. I recommend the book
"Sanctuary" by Bill Whitten.
Posted by: Brian H at May 27, 2007 12:25 AM
***** Comment ******
Anyone have any other information on the "accessories causing more jams" issue? Is that like people were duct-taping or
zip-tying a scope onto their m249? Using cord to attach a bi pod or laser designators or flash light? And these
attachments and riggings caused heat issues?
I find it interesting because more and more you see M16 and M4s and M249s with scopes, bipods, lasers, and flashlights on
them. Are the problems still there when they are attached by the rail or is it just the rigged-on systems causing
problems?
Posted by: txzen at May 26, 2007 04:54 PM
***** Comment ******
I've heard we weren't technically signatories to the Hague Accords, or at least the particulars relating to expanding
(i.e. hollow point) rounds. I think the Accords mentioned that if one side doesn't follow the Accords, the other
doesn't have to. And if we're going against non-national entities that can't necessarily sign for these kinds of
accords...
Posted by: Charles at May 25, 2007 11:16 PM
***** Comment ******
Christian:
My mistake. The statement on hollow points on p. 29 of the report is slightly different.
On shotguns, the history goes roughly as follows. Germany protested our use of shotguns in trench warfare during WWI on
Hague Convention grounds -- i.e., that they caused unnecessary suffering. The Allied victory pretty much put an end to
the discussion.
Around 10 years ago the Judge Advocate General (JAG) issued an opinion authorizing their use as Hague compliant. You
can find it at this
tactical shotgun link.
There might be other opinions to the same effect. IIRC, some legal work was done around the time of the Close Assault
Weapons System (CAWS) program in the 80s, and there may have been other opinions on shotgun-launched flechettes.
Posted by: Demophilus at May 25, 2007 07:13 PM
Comment Group 9.