World Affairs Board - View Single Post

RustyBattleship · 12-22-2007, 02:25 AM

Looks like you guys have been watching "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel.

Yup! The weapons are there. They are available. They are more reliable than presently issued weapons. They have more knockdown power than presently issued weapons.

But as noted in the last paragraph in the beginning post, bureaucracy and micro-management is not just interfering with the issue of better weapons but costing American lives.

The insurgents, Taliban, Al Quaida, Hamas, terrorists, or whatever you call them are not co-signers of the Geneva Convention (actually a horribly outdated document in this century). So, I say anything goes. If a GI wants to use a Ruger Mini-14 instead of an M-16 - give him the parts he needs, he already has the ammo. If he wants to use a Ruger Deerslayer in .44 magnum - give it to him. If a tank crew wants some anti-personnel rounds loaded with short lengths of tow chain (ancient cannister shot) - give it to them (see the Mythbusters episode where a round of chain shot completely destroys a pig carcass). If an Infantryman wants to carry a couple of magazines of incendiary shot - give it to him. If a unit commander wants to use that "Ray Gun" that makes a gathering of suspects feel like they are burning up - give it to them (presently the Pentagon has "officially" refused to deliver this item).

So your Platoon looks like a bunch of Pancho Villa's bandits with a very mixed array of weapons. If they are comfortable, confident and efficient with them, their chances of getting back for a class photo is greatly increased.

Our military and political bureaucracy is too hung up on "standard" issue being the ONLY issue of weaponry.

For example, I would be very confident if I had one of my M-1 Garands modified to take a 30 round box magazine. BUT I would want to keep the .30-06 chambering. This would require the magazines to be longer not only to take the .30-06 over the slightly shorter .308 Winchester, but I can put in Remington 220 grain soft points as well.

Now, THAT would be a man stopper (as well as Moose, Elk, Grizzly, etc.).

12-22-2007, 02:25 AM	#11 (permalink)
RustyBattleship *Defense Professional* Join Date: 01-12-06 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 2,724	Looks like you guys have been watching "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel. Yup! The weapons are there. They are available. They are more reliable than presently issued weapons. They have more knockdown power than presently issued weapons. But as noted in the last paragraph in the beginning post, bureaucracy and micro-management is not just interfering with the issue of better weapons but costing American lives. The insurgents, Taliban, Al Quaida, Hamas, terrorists, or whatever you call them are not co-signers of the Geneva Convention (actually a horribly outdated document in this century). So, I say anything goes. If a GI wants to use a Ruger Mini-14 instead of an M-16 - give him the parts he needs, he already has the ammo. If he wants to use a Ruger Deerslayer in .44 magnum - give it to him. If a tank crew wants some anti-personnel rounds loaded with short lengths of tow chain (ancient cannister shot) - give it to them (see the Mythbusters episode where a round of chain shot completely destroys a pig carcass). If an Infantryman wants to carry a couple of magazines of incendiary shot - give it to him. If a unit commander wants to use that "Ray Gun" that makes a gathering of suspects feel like they are burning up - give it to them (presently the Pentagon has "officially" refused to deliver this item). So your Platoon looks like a bunch of Pancho Villa's bandits with a very mixed array of weapons. If they are comfortable, confident and efficient with them, their chances of getting back for a class photo is greatly increased. Our military and political bureaucracy is too hung up on "standard" issue being the ONLY issue of weaponry. For example, I would be very confident if I had one of my M-1 Garands modified to take a 30 round box magazine. BUT I would want to keep the .30-06 chambering. This would require the magazines to be longer not only to take the .30-06 over the slightly shorter .308 Winchester, but I can put in Remington 220 grain soft points as well. Now, THAT would be a man stopper (as well as Moose, Elk, Grizzly, etc.). __________________ Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.