Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    78
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON
    There's a big push right now in the military to decentralize logistics by taking advantage of ADP technology (that's automated data processing or "computers" in common parlance.) While standards are needed for rifles and other battle weapons, I personally would prefer soldiers to have access to a variety of sidearms, as they are rarely used, not critical for major combat operations, and a different pistol can drastically increase a soldier's speed and accuracy (which is the foundation of pistol craft.)

    In my opinion, all units should stock limited amounts of .45 ACP and GAP, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .357. Soldiers who wish to purchase and deploy with pistols chambered in these rounds should be allowed to do so, and those who choose not to should default to the M-9. All pistol training should be conducted with the M-9, though soldiers who use alternate weapons should receive a small stipend to pay for their training ammunition.

    But that's just me.
    Probably wouldn't do that for the same reason they don't allow soldiers to wear Dragon Skin as opposed to Interceptor BA.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    199
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddy_bear
    Probably wouldn't do that for the same reason they don't allow soldiers to wear Dragon Skin as opposed to Interceptor BA.
    ...Because it would be effective?

  3. #13
    Wounded Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,841
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I thought that the big advantage to Dragon Skin was coverage rather than impenetrability.
    Best Vietnam War music video I've ever seen put together by a vet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDY8raKsdfg

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    78
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
    I thought that the big advantage to Dragon Skin was coverage rather than impenetrability.
    Both, iirc. Not to mention the supposed increase in mobility.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    199
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddy_bear
    Both, iirc. Not to mention the supposed increase in mobility.
    Just looking at the two systems, I think I'd be inclined to take the dragon skin for the mobility. What are the comparative weights between dragon skin and interceptor?

  6. #16
    SFGOON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,208
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Dragon skin rocks, but the military will not deploy BA until WE have tested and approved it. No way we're giving some firm billions for armor unless we know it's going to save lives.

    You guys watch a lot of the discovery channel, don't you?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    199
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by SFGOON
    You guys watch a lot of the discovery channel, don't you?
    Unfortunately, yes. I am addicted to mythbusters and future weapons. I think the guy from FW did a piece on BA, he shot at it and blew up devices around it.

    Too bad the most common injury in this war can't even be stopped by BA.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Shaw AFB
    Posts
    126
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The military has a long history of tampering with test to receive pre-desired conclusions. the army doesnt want to give up its IBA contracts so it wont, regardless if the competing armor designs are leaps and bounds better. Worth noting that operators who are given a choice such as Blackwater and ISI contractors choose Dragonskin over the others. The fact that the CIA, the USSS, NSA and at least 3 generals and their security folks are wearing it proves something about its ability.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    135
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    the idea of having alot of different ammo in stock works just fine until major firefights expend large amounts of it. then problems occur with getting the right kind of ammo to the right people.

    the military should have learned as much a long time ago. history has proven the multi-caliber theory doesnt work. for example the army at one time was considering the schofield over the single action army. (the advantage was quicker reloads). from what i read the deciding factor was not having two kinds of ammo in the field and came about when army units ran into the problem of recieving the wrong ammo.

    also i might see how a couple of different calibers might be deemed neccessary. the 9mm for general use and the 45 acp for special ops. yet keeping 9mm, .357 sig, .40 s&w, .45 acp and so on in stock? though i usually have mixed opinions with guns and ammo magazine thier recent article about some cartriges becoming extinct or nearly so in the future sounds reasonable. how many people do you know that use a .41 ae or 10mm these days? for that matter the 9mm, 40 S&w and 45 acp are largely what everyone on the range is carrying.

    need further proof? except for larger gunshops alot of places dont keep large quanities of ammo in stock they cant sell quickly. how many law enforcement agencies have jumped on the 357 sig or 45 gap? from my research not very many. with the new high-cap 45 acp pistols on the market the 45 gap probably wont last except for glock fans that want them. kimber already pulled out of the 45 gap and i heard other companies were looking to do the same.

    and finally. our same military has given us such wonderfull theories in the past as the rii index and that infantry would not be a deciding factor in combat for long. yet the rii tables are still contreversial to say the least and the infantry has still proven neccessary even criticlal to success.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,138
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    From what I've read the problem with the Dragon Skin is that the adhesives that attach the ceramic discs to the backing sometimes fail at temperatures about 160 F or so, and before you say "But they'd never be exposed to that!" think about body armor being left in a locked vehicle or some such when a soldier isn't using it. It'll get that hot.

    As for the military tampering with testing...

    Well... yeah. I can't think of any other reason we're still using the M16 and its derivatives.

Page 2 of 2 First 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO