Brain Fertilizer: April 2004 Archives

Google Report Â« Blogging Â»

I don't know how I did it, but I managed to be #8 on a Google Search for "Ronald Reagan University". Interesting.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 05:08 PM | Comments (2)

Torture In Iraq Â« GWOT Â»

By now, you've already heard about the torture of Iraqis at the hands of US Soldiers in Iraq

There's some commentary at Balloon Juice (warning: graphic pictures), Hog On Ice, King of Fools, Slapnose,

Now, we all know liberals who aren't violent. Who would never consider using violence to bring about their goals. Obviously, we cannot hold them accountable for what their crazier comrades do or say, any more than I can be held accountable for what Pat Buchanon says or what white supremacists do. [...however, that is precisely why I bought rifles: to have a way to hold them accountable...}

On the other hand, the record of the left is inescapable: more people dead as a consequence of leftist regimes in the range of 50 million dead by starvation in China and the USSR alone (...how many in Cambodia and North Korea...?) Okay, those were inadvertant. Nobody on the left actually intended for them to die, right? Well, except for maybe Stalin and Mao, et al. That was liberalism improperly applied. The intentions are pure, so the mistakes are excusable.

I see the logic of that. For instance, look at the death and misery caused by Christianity inaccurately applied. And yet, and yet...I still find it an argument sadly non-compelling, because of other historical realities.

Take a look at the French Revolution. The revolutionaries were liberal, and were pushing for more freedom. The only problem is that using the language of revolution and freedom, successively more liberal groups were able to seize control and the first thing they did each time? Execute the former leaders who weren't "liberal" enough. They justified it by saying the previous leaders were standing in the way of freedom. And yet, the French Revolution was still a bloodbath, and the majority of the dead were not the nobles, but the populace themselves who found the movement shifting farther and farther left.

The extreme right is still responsible for more direct deaths than the extreme left, yes. Even broken up in components, Timothy McVeigh alone probably exceeds the number of deaths in race riots. The KKK killed and terrorized its share of people, and ELF and PETA will probably never even come close, even at their worst.

But the increasingly violent actions and rhetoric on the part of the liberal extreme is troubling to me, as is the lack of condemnation from the less-extreme left. I found it increasingly troubling that Dean attracted followers through his "anger" at the establishment. I was gratified that when it led to a rather embarassing verbal explosion that many of his followers melted away...but the rage component is still there.

It's still there in examples like the attempt to intimidate Karl, in the "Bush=Hitler" assertions, in the increasingly prevalent unwillingness to accept that the Bush Administration can be mistaken without having lied or misled (much less the very real probability they were correct about Iraq), in the original refusals to accept that President Bush might actually have noble and worthwhile goals in pursuing the Global War on Terror and his decision had nothing to do with oil profits. I wonder what violence is going to occur by "peace" protests at the upcoming International Monetary Fund conference in Washington DC.

And I fully expect no one the left will even say one word in condemnation.

My conclusion is that while the bulk of Democrats/lefties/liberals may not encourage or condone the increasingly violent rhetoric and actions, their unwillingness to confront, shame, and expunge such extremists from their ranks establishes a very dangerous situation in potentia. This potential situation is based on the mob mentality model as demonstrated in liberal revolutionary periods such as the French Revolution, the post-war anti-capitalist movements in China, and any situation in which stimulating rage is a tool to gather power. I fear for the future of America if this boil is not lanced.

Â« Hide "Violent Peaceniks?"

Show Comments Â»

Good post Nathan.

Totally off-topic: that light blue in your blockquote box is really hard on the eyes. May I suggest going a shade or two darker on the text?

posted by Ted on April 13, 2004 03:48 PM

You may suggest anything you wish. Getting me to act on it, though, is an entirely different story.

[grin]

Sure. It's just leftover from my previous blog. I'm still learning all the style stuff, with lotsa help from Madfish Willie. Part of the problem is that my laptop, work puter, and home desktop all render the colors slightly different.

posted by Nathan on April 13, 2004 04:52 PM

I'll change it it to a light grey... or we could change it like I re-did mine over at MAdfish Willie's.

posted by Madfish Willie on April 13, 2004 06:38 PM

I darkened the text, and I'm fairly happy with it.
At this point, I'm not all that concerned about a really coherent color scheme, as long as it's readable for everyone.
In a way, I almost like the idiosyncratic appearance that I have now. It certainly makes me unique.
But I'll tweak it as I go, because I do need to learn this myself. The functionality is the most important thing to me.
Speaking of functionality, I can't find my hand-coded bloglist in the template anymore...so if I wanted to add a few more or re-arrange it, where would I go?
Also, the comments window doesn't seem to remember my personal info, which is kind of insulting since this is my blog... [wry grin]

posted by nathan on April 13, 2004 06:49 PM

You deleted the hand-coded bloglist. I'll see if I can find it again. As for the comment thingy, ask Pixy, sometimes I have the same problem on other blogs... eventually it remembers. I'll look at the code real quick to make sure there's nothing funky in it.

posted by Madfish Willie on April 13, 2004 07:14 PM

Your deleted blogroll is in the Default Main Index at the bottom of the edit templates page. Just cut what you need from the Sidetitle div down through the end of the Side div. Then paste it into the Sidebar module where you want it to show up. Let me know if you need any help.

I checked the comment template and everything looks fine. So, I'd ask Pixy what's the gig.

posted by Madfish Willie on April 13, 2004 07:20 PM

Â« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 11:16 AM | Comments (6)

I Defer the Question Â« Media Distortions Â»

Over here, Zombyboy asks a question. Well, he implies it with this:

If I feel that way, I wonder how every soldier who wakes up in service this morning feels.

I recognize that the inclusion of "I wonder" renders the statement largely rhetorical...but as a servicemember myself who is extremely tired of the left failing to castigate their own for idiotic statements as much as the right castigated Trent Lott for his idiotic statement, I thought I'd respond.

Except that it was a non-servicemember who put it best, I think.

Go read Steve's take on the whole article.

Here's the obligatory excerpt:

Rooney implies that if you asked a whole bunch of US soldiers how they feel about Iraq, they'd tear off their fatigues, exposing MorOn.org MoveOn.org T-shirts, and loudly proclaim "Bush equals Hitler." He wants us to think they're over there cursing Bush day and night and writing love letters to Patty Murray.

Not true, of course. Polls suggest morale may need some punching up, but that's about it. Name a conflict in which no soldiers grumbled. Hell, Rooney himself grumbled about working in the oppressive Rather regime at CBS, but he kept plugging along until they put his things in a box outside his office door.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 10:23 AM | Comments (0)

Annika Strikes Again Â« Politics As Usual Â»

How can you not see the wisdom in this?

Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.

She makes a strong case for her point of view. I find it all the more interesting because it is something I've experienced without particularly noting it. Not only are the ACLU and Newspaper Op-Ed pages on their side, but the overwhelmingly prevalent voice in our society refuses to condemn them. That's why Trent Lott is criticized by his own party for being a dumb-ass until he must lose some power, but very, very, very few on the left will bother to even acknowledge that venomous nonsense/hate-spouters like Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Gary Trudeau actually influence people with their one-sided distortions, much less denounce them or distance themselves from them.

Let's get it on record, again: I specifcally went out and bought several guns and am in the process of getting acquainted with them because I dislike and detest the views and intent of the wacko fringe on the right. I will shoot and kill anyone who tries to lynch a minority or establish a white supremacist nation. But liberals still defend the Rosenburgs and Communism and haven't given up defending Socialism. It's like they don't mind the Democrat Underground, they just want them to conceal it better.

Sheesh!

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 10:13 PM | Comments (0)

Seems About Right to Me Â« Social Issues Â»

But you'll have to read the whole thing to know what I'm talking about.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 03:56 PM | Comments (0)

On Writing Â« Writing Â»

Yeah, the last entry was my little joke.

But.

The First Novel is going fairly well. I'm up over 8000 words now. Never mind that I should have been at this point around day 7 of November of last year...

The important thing is that I am energized, excited, and I now know everything that will be written in the novel, as well as how plots and sub-plots and characters will be developed.

The biggest problem right now is that every time I write something, I feel like I've accomplished something and so I let other priorities overtake writing. I gotta stop that.

But this novel will be finished by Independence Day. Not polished, mind you, but finished.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 03:53 PM | Comments (2)

Writing Â« Writing Â»

Writing.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 03:10 PM | Comments (3)

They Were Let Off Lightly? Â« Media Distortions Â»

This article makes me quite angry.

U.S. soldiers accused of rape and other sex crimes while serving in Iraq routinely dodged prosecution during the past year with the help of commanders who gave them light punishments such as reprimands and pay cuts, according to military records released to the Denver Post.
Troops facing sex offenses were given job-related punishments -- which offer no prospect of prison time -- nearly five times as often as those charged with other crimes.

Such leniency also was granted to soldiers accused of serial crimes. Though investigators compiled evidence to prosecute a sergeant for sexually assaulting three subordinate battalion members, he was only given a reprimand, records show.

And though evidence was gathered to prosecute a military police officer for one of two rape allegations, reports show his commanders merely dropped him in rank and discharged him at his request.

I'm angry because the writer of the article does not understand military culture enough to understand that an Article 15 can actually be a very serious punishment. I'm angry because "accusation" is used as if it is a synonym for "conviction". I'm angry because "gathered evidence to prosecute" does not mean there was enough evidence to prosecute. I'm angry because it is after-the-fact hindsight second-guessing that implies the the person charged was absolutely and provably guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the commanders deliberately lessened the punishment to perpetuate some Good 'Ol Boy attitude that sexual assault is unimportant.

Horse Puckey.

Women do make unfounded accusations of rape and sexual assault. Sexual assault and rape are often difficult to prove if they aren't witnessed or if the woman doesn't get a medical exam in a timely manner. What do you do if it comes down to a case of "He Said/She Said"? In the civilian world, absolutely nothing. In the military world, the male soldier will get, at the very least, a thoroughly masterful dressing down for even allowing himself to be in a situation that looked bad. He'll get screamed at by at least three levels of the chain of command. The accusation will remain in his record, and even a dismissed allegation can prevent him from getting promoted. If the commander has some idea that the accusation is correct, but cannot prove it, he is still within his rights to take money and time from a soldier just because he wants to; the control enjoyed by a commander is total. And believe me, you spend enough of your time away from home trying to earn too little money to live on that losing half your pay for even one month is a serious blow, as is having to do extra duty for 4 hours a night for a month. They make darn certain that the extra duty is not enjoyable.

This whole article is a study of half-truths and lies. The military takes rape and sexual assault far more seriously and prosecutes it far more vigorously than any corporation I know. I had been on station less than a month when a 1st Lt was kicked out of the service with a Dishonorable Discharge for doing nothing more than having consensual sex with an adult enlisted member not in his chain of command. Name one other corporation or institution worldwide that would go to that length to protect its employees.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)
Â» Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon links with: Scattershooting
Â» Weekend Pundit links with: He's Back!

Just Askin', Ya Know?

Does anyone want to receive notifications of new posts? Email me your email address, and I'll see that it happens.

I think.

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)

So You Want to Buy a Gun? Â« Gun Issues Â»

(If you don't, you should)

The question is which gun?

So probably the best place to start is by asking yourself what you want a gun for. For what you want a gun. You know what I mean.

If you want a gun for home or personal defense, that will lead you in an entirely different direction than if you want to shoot at paper targets a few times a week, every week.

A shotgun is supposedly best for home defense. A pistol is almost as good, and can also work well for personal defense outside your home.

If you want to have fun making holes in paper, you probably want a .22 rifle, because you can plink away at distances up to a hundred yards for about a penny a shot, and the rifles themselves don't cost much, either.

If you want to hunt large game, you need a rifle, probably bolt-action. But the cost of the rifle is only the first consideration, because the more you shoot, the more ammo you need. You can expect to spend between $.10 and $.40 a round to practice. Some rifles will be more expensive with cheap ammo, some will be cheap with expensive ammo, and some will be cheap with cheap ammo. Cheapest is best, right? But the reason for variations in price is different rifles will vary in accuracy, recoil, reliability, workmanship, availabilityâ€¦

Let's look a little closer at the issues:

Home Defense.
Most people claim that a shotgun is best for home defense. When you consider that a shotgun spreads out a great deal of lead over a wide area, but the power of that lead drops off rapidly with distance, that line of thinking becomes clear. You increase the chance of hitting the intruder and hurting him badly without much risk of the shot penetrating walls to injure a family member or neighbor. Yes, some powerful rifle rounds will penetrate the outer walls of a home.
But it's not that simple, because some people cannot handle the recoil of a shotgun. You can't keep a shotgun in a nighstand drawer very easily, and the length can be unwieldy if you have to cover more than one person. It's also not as convenient for outside the home.
So if you consider a pistol, you have to still consider that the larger rounds can still easily penetrate the inner walls of a house. Again, some people may not be able to handle the recoil of a larger pistol. If you decide on a really light round, like a .22, you get a pistol that is easily controllable and precise in shootingâ€¦but you risk not being able to actually stop the intruder with one or even multiple shots. Generally, a 9mm represents the best combination of stopping power and lightness of recoil.
But don't just go out and buy a 9mm pistol! If you are going to keep the pistol by your bed without using it for months or years, then reliability is an issue. Even the best automatics sometimes jam or fail to fire. The best thing about a revolver is you can neglect it for years, but when you pick it up and squeeze the trigger, it still fires.
But that's about all I know about pistols. Your best course of action is to go to a gun store related to or collocated with a firing range, one that will let you try out guns before you decide to purchase. Even simple things like the angle of the grip or the convenience of the safety switch may help you decide which is best for you. Some guns are better for people with small hands, some are better designed for bigger people. Try out several before you finalize your decision.

But I know rifles a little bit better.
As I've said before, if you want to just make holes in paper, a .22 is your best bet, mainly because they are cheap and reliable, and the ammo is cheap. But they are useless for anything else. Sure, you could use a .22 rifle for home defense, but the problems of stopping power, jamming, unwieldiness due to length, etc, would make a .22 revolver far better for that sort of thing. A .22 rifle should pretty much just be to work on marksmanship skills, because you can shoot quite a bit for pennies.
But there are other choices, as well. NATO ammunition is plentiful enough to be pretty cheap. Both 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO can be found for about $.10 a round, so you can get a good amount of shooting in for less than $5. (Although you may need to buy in bulk of several thousand rounds to get the price that cheap).
Unfortunately, most of the rifles that fire fire NATO ammunition of either size are fairly expensive (with a few exceptions I will detail below). This is because they are semi-automatic modifications of military weapons for civilian use, but retain the military reliability and reputation. M-16 clones will cost you in excess of $800 new; M-14 variations will cost you more than a thousand; semi-automatic Stery Augs and FN-FALs can cost more than $2000. To me, that's a high price to pay for cheap ammo. But you get good quality rifles, so it's a personal choice.

I prefer pre-WWII military surplus bolt-action rifles. They are plentiful due to being mass-produced for various armies. Ammo is generally cheaper for the same reason. They have a tangible sense of history attached (they aren't making 50-year-old rifles anymore). They use ammunition that is powerful enough for hunting or militia/apocalypse scenarios, and are usually quite accurate.

A note on accuracy: Generally, bolt-action rifles are more accurate than semi-automatic. Further, 5.56mm rifles are usually accurate to about 400 yards. Larger rifles, including 7.62 NATO and the various WWII-era calibers are often accurate enough for use with a scope up to 1000 yards! To tell the truth, you usually cannot see a human past about 300-350 yards without some sort of magnification, and even most deer are spotted and shot at less than 150 yards, and you wouldn't want to try a shot beyond 200 yards unless you are very experienced *and* skilled. So long-range accuracy is perhaps not that importantâ€¦but I like the idea.

A note on power: a 5.56mm round is usually considered too weak to kill a deer. If you are going to hunt large animals, you must have something larger, usually at least the Swedish 6.5x55, even better to have something in the 7.5mm (.30 caliber) range. That's a little simplistic, though, because the bullet weight and cartridge powder capacity have as much effect as the bullet diameterâ€¦ The most important point is that the 5.56mm rifle is generally considered to be best for varmints, marksmanship practice, and suitable for use against humans in a survivalist/militia/apocalypse situation.

You'll hear me mention "mauser" many times in talking about rifles. This is because Mr. Mauser designed what is nearly the perfect bolt action system more than 100 years ago. If you purchase a modern rifle, brand new, with all the benefits of 100 years of experience and computer-assisted design, you will get a bolt action system virtually indistinguishable from a German K98 Mauser.

For all the above reasons, and particularly the reasons of cost and historical significance, I like the pre-WWII military surplus bolt-action rifles.

They have demonstrated their effectiveness against humans (obviously), but are also excellent for hunting larger game. There is some variation, in that the Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55 is too small for larger deer and elk, and the largest rounds (the German 8x57mm) might be too big for smaller deer, but pretty much every caliber is versatile enough for multiple functions.

(I apologize for my continual reference to killing humans. However, most large cities are less than 48 hours from mass starvation, and thus collapse. Plus, The Turner Diaries presents a chilling view of what armed white supremacists plan to do, and I want to make sure there is an armed force to oppose such idiots)

So pretty much any old military surplus rifle will do? Not much difference between any of them, right? Not so fast.

Right now, I have 8 distinct old military rifle types (12 total rifles), and their respective strengths render me unable to bear parting with any of them. Here's why:

Russian M44, 7.62x54r
This is a good rifle, durable, reliable and essentially the same rifle used by Russian snipers in WWIIâ€¦and while it is not one of the ones chosen as being of top-notch accuracy, it is surprisingly accurate. Lots of cheap ammo available, but the ammo is corrosive. The best part of this rifle is it has an integral bayonet, so I like it as a Civil Chaos weapon. Strong recoil, though. I have to use a recoil pad with it.

Swiss K-31, 7.5x55
I have two of these because the price was right. These rifles have a reputation for astounding accuracy, of sniper level quality. If you are a good marskman, you can hit at 400 yards with iron (open) sights what other rifles would need a scope to hit. It's made like a, well, Swiss watch, and if you built a new rifle to this level of tolerance, quality, and accuracy, it would cost you close to $2000. But you can get 'em for as cheap as $120...
They have never made corrosive ammo for this rifle, which is a nice bonus. If you like the historical angle, while these rifles haven't been used in war, they do have the name, unit, and sometimes home address of the reservist soldier who used it last (and took it home with him). Some people have been able to make contact with these people.
It is in the .30-06 class of round, quite powerful, and a pretty good recoil. Ammo is fairly expensive, though, so I'm planning on handloading rounds myself to save money.

Argentine Mauser, 7.65mm
I can't let go of mine because it is an 1890 rifle, 114 years old!!, and yet in still beautiful condition with unmarred wood and new-looking metal. The nice part about it is, from my viewpoint, that even though the bullet is slightly larger, the recoil I feel shooting it is much milder than the Swiss or the Russian.

Swedish Mauser, 6.5x55
When they talk about this rifle having the best workmanship, they aren't joking. Often, the wood of the stock might be beat up, but the action is smooth on all three of my Swedish Mausers. 5 years ago you could have bought excellent condition Swedish Mausers for less than $100. The first one I bought was purchased at a time when no one selling, though, and it cost me $300. The 2nd, a shorter-length M38, was also $300, but had a new stock and was drilled and tapped for a scope, so it was worth it. The third one was purchased after someone dropped a bunch of 'em on the market again, with badly scarred stocks. I found one that wasn't that bad, with a near-perfect bore, for just $240, so it was worth it. I expect to wear out one of the longer rifles by shooting it bunches, and having the second rifle as a back-up. I'll add the scope to the M38 for my only scoped rifle.
The recoil of the 6.5x55 is quite mild, but the rifle is designed for a very long, heavy bullet, so it is still a very useful bullet for deer. Or people. Ammo is pretty cheap and plentiful, too. When you combine the extremely light recoil for such a legitimate battle cartridge with the excellent workmanship, you end up with a weapon reknowned for accuracy. Not as accurate as the Swiss K-31, but not as hard-kicking, either. While the Swiss K-31 can make groups smaller than 2" at 200 yards, the Swedish Mauser would be more like 2.5". Most other rifles would be within 3-4" at 200 yards.

(This is referred to as an MOA (minute of angle) measurement. If a rifle is of MOA accuracy, it will spread 1" for every 100 yards, i.e., 4" at 400 yards. A sub-MOA rifle would be very accurate, and the K-31 is one such rifle. Most bolt action rifles come close but don't reach MOA accuracy, and most semi-automatic rifles are about twice that, spreading 2" for every 100 yards of distance)

Egyptian Mauser, 8x57
This is my most powerful rifle, and this rifle itself is in nearly unused condition. I may want to hunt elk someday, and would want the most powerful round to make sure I don't fail to get a kill merely because of the bullet size/power. It's also nice to know that this will be my rifle from start to finish. I think everyone who wants to collect and hunt with old rifles needs at least one 8mm rifle. German 8mm Mausers (the K98) were quite popular, and there have been Russian-captured German Mausers claiming to have all the markings and being in excellent condition for less than $200, but for the most part, it seems as if the genuine surplus German rifles have all been purchased, meaning the price for a good quality one is approaching or exceeding $500. Not worth it to me when I can get Czech or Yugo or (as I did) an Egyptian Mauser for less than $200.

Spanish Mauser, 7.62 NATO (.308)
I actually did attempt to sell this one earlier as superfluousâ€¦but when it didn't sell immediately for the price I wanted, I withdrew it from consideration, because it could eventually be useful or even vital to have a rifle that can fire such an inexpensive and easily found caliber. I'll probably be buying a case of 1000 rounds for less than $90 soon; once I use that all up, there most definitely will be a positive effect on my marksmanship skills!

British SMLE, .303
The round isn't anything special. It isn't especially inexpensive, or amazingly accurate or anything. It is a good, proven rifle, though. The action on the SMLE is smooth and fast, to the point that when used in battle, some opponents thought the British were firing a semi-automatic rifle! A nice extra bonus is that most of the WWII-era rifles have only 5 or 6 round magazines, but the SMLE has room for 10! I can imagine that in some situations it might be nice to have 4 extra rounds without reloading.

AR-180, 5.56mm
Inexpensive, plentiful ammo. Not good enough for hunting anything edible, nope. But a good round for tactical situations. The only thing about M-16/AR-15 rifles is that they tend to jam if not taken care of well, because the action system uses the gas directly from the barrel to push the bolt back. That means that all the soot/carbon gets blown right on your action, and the tolerances are so close that it doesn't take much before your rifle won't work anymore. The AK-47, on the other hand, uses the gas to push a piston that pushes the bolt, so you don't have the blast of soot/carbon in your chamber to gum up the works. The AK-47 was also made with very loose tolerances in order to be reliable (and cheap)â€¦it also made it far less accurate.
The AR-180 combines the best of both worlds. It has tolerances tight enough to be quite accurate, but uses the gas piston system from the AK-47 so it doesn't jam so easily, even if you don't clean it for several hundred rounds. Recoil is quite light, but still enough stronger than a .22 that you can get used to how the recoil affects your shooting. Plus, it cost less than $600.

I had considered trying to get a WWII/Korean-era semi-automatic rifle, like the US M-1 Garand or maybe a Russian SVT or German, but they all cost in excess of $600. Sure, I could get a semi-auto SKS for less than $150 or AK clone for less than $300, but they have accuracy issues and feature a lighter/weaker round than the aforementioned battle rifles. I feel I'm better off with the AR-180 than an SKS or AK. However, there is one great deal in powerful, accurate, semi-automatic rifles:
The French MAS 49/56, 7.5x54
Despite the jokes made about the French and their weapons, everything I've seen says that this semi-auto rifle is excellent. It was used in French Indo-China, Algeria, and other colonial regions for decades, so not only is ammo plentiful and cheap, but the rifle is tested and well-respected. It does use the direct gas impingement system of the M-16, so I would expect you need to be careful keeping it clean, but if you want a good, strong cartridge in a reliable semi-automatic firearm, this would be your best choice. Because it's cheaper than the others with cheaper ammoâ€¦and because the Garand cannot be reloaded until you've fired the entire 8-round clip, whereas the French MAS 49/56 takes a 10-round removable magazine (and 20-round magazines exist out there somewhereâ€¦). I may get one someday, if I still feel the lack too keenly. Some are chambered for .308, which makes ammo even cheaperâ€¦.
Just be careful, though, because there is a MAS 36, and that's a bolt-action rifle of good quality but no clear advantage over any of the other WWII-era bolt-action military surplus rifles listed above, and worse in many cases than most.

Â« Hide "So You Want to Buy a Gun?"

Show Comments Â»

Posted by Nathan at 07:50 AM | Comments (5)

The 5.56mm Debate Continues Â« Gun Issues Â»

I've said before that I agree with many of the criticisms of the 5.56mm round for a battle rifle, but that in the final analysis, I think the US military has a specific aim in mind that the 5.56mm fits perfectly:

1) a concept of enemy suppression by rapid fire, allowing maneuver tactics that allow you to get in close enough to kill with other weapons, and

2) a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy, because it takes more enemies out of the fight to take care of 1 wounded soldier than to bury a dead one.

While the M-14 and the M-1 before it are still loved by those who are gun aficiandos, they were not without their own problems. I think the problems are adequately discussed in these two articles:

Article One
Article Two

However, one other article I read (in a magazine whose name I unfortunately cannot recall) highlighted one aspect of the 5.56mm round that is absolutely unacceptable.

A modern military fire team needs a range of choices with which to engage the enemy. One such necessity is a light machine gun that can provide all the advantages of fully automatic fire (cover, range, penetration) without the added weight of a medium machine gun or the need to carry special ammunition. FN's Mini-ME (also known as the Squad Automatic Weapon and the M249) is an excellent light machine gun: easily portable, fired from a bipod, reliable, accurate, and using the same ammo as the M-16, which substantially reduces logistic difficulties and can actually save lives by allowing ammo to be exchanged between the riflemen and the SAW gunner.

Unfortunately, the 5.56mm round lacks the power to chew through lighter obstacles like cinder blocks and wooden fences the way a light machine gun should. Additionally, the velocity loss of the 5.56mm round means that the SAW's range doesn't really extend beyond that of the M-16. This is absolutely unconscionable.

You can mitigate the shortcomings of the 5.56mm round in the M-16 by being able to carry more, by allowing some troops to use the M-14, by issuing grenade launchers to kill/disable enemies beyond 150 meters. But there is no way to overcome the disadvantages of the 5.56mm round in the M249 without bringing along an M-60. That simply isn't an option in some situations.

The XM-8 (the next battle rifle) uses a gas-piston system rather than the direct gas impingment of the M-16, so the jamming problem should become a thing of the past. I used to think that the new rifle would perform well and silence all but the most adamant critics of the 5.56mm round. Now I'm joining them.

Why? Because even a slightly more bulky bullet mated with a slightly larger cartridge case would, without losing any of the advantages of the 5.56mm round in the personal rifle (low recoil, easy portability due to lightness of the round, flat trajectory), provide the M249 with greatly improved performance in all the aforementioned aspects; to wit: significantly increased range and significantly increased power at longer range to be able to penetrate light obstacles like bricks, wood, and thinner metal.

So why can't we just increase the bulk of the 5.56mm round? Because we've already done that. It helped, but the laws of physics pretty much preclude us from being able to add any more bulk. So why don't we just rechamber the M249 and leave the XM-8 alone? Because the US military is committed to keeping the ammo for the SAW and the basic battle rifle exactly the same, for the good reasons already explained above.

As such, I no longer support the 5.56mm round. I'm not sure what difference that makes, but I thought you should know.

For what it's worth.

Â« Hide "The 5.56mm Debate Continues"

Show Comments Â»

I favour 2mm ammunition with a nuclear-isomer explosive payload. They go off like a grenade, so anything you hit stays hit. And being so small, even my handgun can hold 180 rounds.

Of course, they won't come into service until the mid-2030s, so that's a bit of a wait for you guys.

posted by Trixie Misa on April 11, 2004 11:50 AM

I've been greatly impressed with what I've read about the 6.5 and 6.7mm cartridges being tested by various manufacturers. Although there is a high likelihood of a magazine capacity reduction from 30 to 20-25, the much better performance of the round is, IMO well worth the trade-off, especially as it appears that current military training has improved general combat marksmanship.

The original 55 grain 5.56 load that exited the muzzle of a 20" barreled rifle at well over 3000 fps, then tumbled and fragmented on impact out to 300+ meters was an effective, if not terrifically accurate round. It suffered only in a lack of range, and backed up with the M60 it was a decent cartridge for most combat. The new steel-cored 62 grain projectile fired out of a 16" or shorter barrel just doesn't cut it, and it appears that in the current combat situation, ranges of 250m+ are not that uncommon. If we're going to go to a new weapon system, now is the time to change caliber.

posted by Kevin Baker on April 11, 2004 07:21 PM

Kevin,
Yeah, that fits with what I understand.
I have, unfortunately, far too little practical experience with small arms, and most of what I share on guns is going to be what I have learned from reading and sorting different opinions...albeit bolstered somewhat from firing my dozen or so Pre-WWII military surplus bolt-action rifles.
I look forward to discussions with you on this, and I hope you'll keep me honest without getting irritated if I disagree or say something stupid.

posted by nathan on April 12, 2004 07:42 AM

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ
ÌÇÊ
ÔÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÌÇÊ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÌÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ãæÓæÚå ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãæÓæÚÉ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ßíãÒÑ
ÞíãÒÑ
gamezer
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÏæÑå ÇÍÊÑÇÝ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ ÇáãæÇÞÚ æÇáãäÊÏíÇÊ
ÈÑÇãÌ åßÑ
ÈÑÇãÌ ÇÎÊÑÇÞ
ÇÈÑÇÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíå
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ 100
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÑæãÇäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíå
ÚÑÇÞ
ÚÑÇÞíÉ
Ïáíá ÇáãæÇÞÚ ÇáÚÑÇÞíÉ
IraqI Directory
Iraqi CHat
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ÚÑÇÞ ÇÈ
ãæÓæÚå ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá ÕæÑ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ÝÏíæ
ÇÛÇäí ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÇáÚÇÈ
ÇáÚÇÈ ÝáÇÔ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
]v]am uvhrdm
äÊÇÆÌ ÇáÓÇÏÓ 2011
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚÑÇÞí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÌÒÇÆÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÌÒÇÆÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇÑÏäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÇÑÏäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßæíÊíÉ ÔÇÊ ßæíÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÛÑÈíÉ ÔÇÊ ãÛÑÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÏÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÊæäÓíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ íãäíÉ ÔÇÊ íãäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ãæÓæÚÉ ÇáÎáíÌ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓÚæÏíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓÚæÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ áíÈíÉ
ÔÇÊ áíÈí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇãÇÑÇÊíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÇãÇÑÇÊí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÈÍÑíäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÈÍÑíäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ãÕÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ãÕÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚãÇäíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÚãÇäí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓæÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÓæÑí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÞØÑíÉ
ÔÇÊ ÞØÑí
ÏÑÏÔå ßæíÊíÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÝáÓØíäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÌÝ
ÔÇÊ ÔåÑÒÇÏ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÚãÇÑÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ Ïåæß
ÏÑÏÔå ÇÑÈíá
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔå ÚÑÇÞäÇ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÓãÇæÉ
ÏÑÏÔå ÇáÈÕÑÉ
ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÍáÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞ3
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÓáíãÇäíÉ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÇäÈÇÑ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáÑãÇÏí
ÏÑÏÔÉ ßÑÈáÇÁ
ÏÑÏÔÉ ÇáäÇÕÑíÉ
ãæÞÚ ãÕØÝì ÇáÚÑÇÞí
ãÑßÒ ÊÍãíá
ÇÓÊÖÇÝÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ
ÈæÇÈÉ ÇáÚÑÇÞ
ãäÊÏì

Auto-Submitter-Seo By Mr.php ==> ashq7a@att.net

posted by ÏÑÏÔÉ ÚÑÇÞíÉ on July 13, 2011 07:55 AM

Â« Hide Comments

Posted by Nathan at 10:21 AM | Comments (4)

Freedom Â« Politics As Usual Â»

So it seems to me...

That there are people who want to make sure that no one ever starves, that no one ever dies for lack of money for medicine, that the gap between the successful and the not-so-successful should be minimized. After all, they say, if a CEO works 40 hours and a janitor works 40 hours, why should the CEO make 3000 times as much? After all, they say, there are people who could spend their whole lives working as hard as they can and never be able to earn enough to buy a house, or to retire, or to stop living hand-to-mouth.