9/27/2010 4:51pm, #21
So Cassius, would the tl;dr version of that be, "software, not hardware"?
I would like to hear more of your opinion on the following:
9/27/2010 4:54pm, #22
Wait, it's possible to damage a firearm from over cleaning? How??Best Vietnam War music video I've ever seen put together by a vet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDY8raKsdfg
9/28/2010 8:35pm, #23
Privates are stupid, what can I say?
On the other hand, it's mainly the fault of a lot of military units that enforce an unreasonable standard of cleanliness. The Army standard for "clean" means no carbon and completely dry. Anyone that has ever owned a firearm knows that you store weapons with a light coat of lubrication to keep them from rusting."No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal
9/29/2010 5:37am, #24
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Also, Cassius made some fine points.
The only thing I will add, is that I read a few studies done post WW2, and here, studies post the 73' war. These studies led to the transition to smaller caliber rounds.
The main conclusions from those studies, was that what won firefights was the volume of fire much more than the accuracy, thus the decision to change from big-ass rounds, few mags with few bullets in them, to smaller caliber, more ammo on the soldier for the same amount of weight, which made sense to me, as I had to shlep that **** around.
I read somewhere (doubt it's official or true) that Delta still carries 1911 as their sidearms, that my friend, as you know, is no tiny handgun.
Oh, and yes, weapons can be damaged from over-cleaning.
9/29/2010 6:15am, #25
9/29/2010 6:23am, #26
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
9/29/2010 7:14am, #27
The thing that people don't take into consideration with the Spec Ops community is that while they have large budgets, they're still not unlimited, and ammunition is pretty expensive if you shoot a lot. So it makes sense to use weapons that are chambered in the same caliber as the rest of the military because then most of your ammo budget is taken care of by the regular military."No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal
9/30/2010 2:16pm, #28
9/30/2010 2:36pm, #29
O.k., quick and dirty!
The big move towards smaller bullets was to save weight and resources.
You will find that they also moved to very high velocities to compensate for the low mas of the small bullet. (5.56 nato SS109 62grn bullet flying at 3100fps ZING!!!)
As for the "reduced stopping power" stories. There's a bit of video and photographic evidence out there showing one of those "poodle shooter" rounds opening the human head like a peeled orange.
WARNING, THIS VIDEO IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC:
LiveLeak.com - !WARNING! Graphic Raw Video! Sniper Head Shot of Red Shirt Protester and Aftermath
As you can see, the 5.56 gets the job done just fine.
9/30/2010 4:31pm, #30
What can tell you is that when people do it and then don't immediately clean it all out, it fucks the weapon up pretty badly. We just had to turn in a 240 that was green on the inside due to some shaving cream treatment that a couple privates tried to do to it. Which is hilarious, since they probably walked right past the solvent tank on the way out the door to buy the shaving cream."No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal