The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2013, 05:19 PM   #51
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,381
Quote:
It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.
It was rubbish when the military started going against combatants, such as in Vietnam, that were willing to abandon their wounded. We will spend $10s of thousands of dollars to rescue or deal with a wounded soldier and so we think the opposition puts such value on their soldiers and that just isn't the case with a lot of our enemy.

Just because military theory is taught does not make it accurate or current.

Back when fighting the Moro in the Philippines, the Moro got wounded a lot, but wounding them didn't result in the occupation of several combatants to help the wounded get aid. Instead, the Moro just kept fighting. Many of our opposition value dying in battle over going home when their stint is up.

You never see battles where there are two people not fighting for every person injured. Even when there are efforts to rescue a soldier, to extract her/him from battle, the rescuers, if part of the unit engaged in battle, only does so so long as they have the resources to do so and then those combatants return to the fight. If the theory worked, when you wounded 1/3 of the opposition, the battle would be over, but that never happens.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 06:23 PM   #52
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,075
None of my six AR-15 rifles have ever killed anyone.

There is a myth that the 5.56mm cartridge was designed to wound and is ineffective for that reason. Swiss and Swedish doctors raised holy hades when they saw Viet Cong and NVA troops who were wounded with the bullet from the M193 5.56mm round. They caused a wide uproar.

Since about 2000 i have killed a few hundred wild hogs using the M193 5.56mm round: Most were killed at close range from tree stands. Some were killed at ranges over 300 yards. Not one hog escaped after being hit. Yeah, i had some memorable tracking and dragging jobs.

When fired from a gun with a 20" or longer barrel the bullet will fragment at ranges to about 175 yards. Typically, the bullet penetrates 5-7", yaws 90 degrees and fragments, destroying the lungs. Sometimes the heart, diaphragm and liver are also damaged. i had three or four bullets that failed to fragment after hitting a hog at close range. But the hog died anyway.

Army Colonel (Dr.) Martin Fackler is arguably the worlds most respected authority on military small arms wound ballistics.


http://www.ciar.org/~ttk/mbt/papers/...ckler.unk.html

Last edited by thallub; April 2, 2013 at 06:39 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old April 2, 2013, 09:20 PM   #53
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 978
So, all firearms are designed for the purpose of killing is what we have established so far. Based on that logic, many things go into the design of rifles to make them easier to use, more durable, or easier to aim. If I were to take two rifles of the same caliber and comparable design, but put a tactical stock with rails, a scope, pistol grip, fore grip, and adjustable stock, is the tactical rifle more deadly?

Its easier to use, aim, and maybe the plastic/metal is more durable than the traditional wood stocks on some rifles. Are these additions for the purpose of making it easier to kill or are they simply a luxury like leather seats in a car?
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 07:35 AM   #54
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
Pistol grips aid in aiming so yes, they do make it better at killing.
hardworker is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 09:19 AM   #55
P1090
Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: NE/Central Ohio
Posts: 57
Quote:
Pistol grips aid in aiming so yes, they do make it better at killing.
By that argument, they make guns easier to shoot what you are aiming at; thus reducing the risk to bystanders. Ergo, pistol grips make guns safer.
P1090 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 09:35 AM   #56
StewNTexas
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2009
Location: Ingleside, TX
Posts: 7
Not to go too far afield, but I believe the earliest assault weapons were rocks and sticks. Did a lot of damage for many generations.

Do you suppose they would have caused more deaths if they had been painted black?
StewNTexas is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 09:37 AM   #57
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,751
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 09:48 AM   #58
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
P1090,

No they do not make guns safer. They make them easier to aim. What you do when you aim them is on you, but the original reason why guns needed to be easy to aim is to make them more effective in combat. That is not subject to opinion.

Admitting this does not make you an anti. People on our side need to see this because right now everyone thinks we are out of touch nutjobs, and if everyone used the type of logic seen on here I might have to agree with them.
hardworker is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 10:53 AM   #59
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,762
Quote:
Do you suppose they (rocks) would have caused more deaths if they had been painted black?
Only the ones that had forward grips and lasers mounted on them.
Skans is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 11:04 AM   #60
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,384
The injuring an enemy combatant takes three other soldiers out of the fight hasn't been true since WWII and the Wermarcht.

The bad guys we fought were more fastistidious about recovering thier dead than thier wounded, knowing that we would provide aid to the wounded after the engagement was over.

As much as I disagree with the notion that all guns are weapons, the fact still remains that the Second Amendment was drafted in order to ensure that the people had the means to resist tyranny, foreign or domestic.

And you do that with weapons, good, effective, modern weapons.

Wether that weapon is a Kentucky long rifle or an AR-15 doesn't matter.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 11:15 AM   #61
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
Armoredman, is that a VZ-58?

Quote:
Pistol grips aid in aiming so yes, they do make it better at killing.
For the M16 and AKM type guns, the pistol grip is an integral part of the design. For a fun experiment, take it off and try aiming the rifle. Without the pistol grip, it's awkward and difficult. They're not meant to be held like traditional rifles.

The argument has been made that they make it easier to rapid-fire from the hip, but I have never seen any mention in any form of military training to use the gun that way.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 12:05 PM   #62
lcpiper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
Well, the couple of guys it took to take care of wounded men certainly works against the US, we do it.

And some firearms are specifically competition sporting guns and would make poor defensive or combat arms so no, not all firearms are designed to kill.

As for pistol grips and shooting from the hip. During MOUT, (Military operations in Urban Terrain) training at Ft. hood in about 1990, I witnessed our instructors use M16-A1s very effectively (MILES Gear), firing down hallways and stairwells without exposing their bodies to direct return fire. It's much easier to do with a pistol grip then a traditional stock. So not from the hip but the weapon held so as to fire around corners.

It is also much easier to fire a rifle that has a pistol grip one handed then it is a standard stock so a wounded soldier may still be able to fight as needed one handed. Less effectively yes, but perhaps still to telling effect.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223
lcpiper is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 04:16 PM   #63
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 978
Quote:
The argument has been made that they make it easier to rapid-fire from the hip, but I have never seen any mention in any form of military training to use the gun that way.
When I saw that Feinstein said that I almost lost it. The pistol grip is most definitely not made for that, and firing from the hip isn't even an advantage because it is far less accurate.

Anyways, should any of this matter? Is this simply a matter of firearms being in the right or wrong hands? If one design is more deadly than another, is it worth the safety from a few men to restrict the rights of many men?

P.S. For the record, I'm just sparking conversation; I already have a well-cemented opinion on this.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old April 3, 2013, 10:43 PM   #64
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,751
Yes, Tom, that's an old pic of mine from some years ago.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 05:29 AM   #65
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,496
Designed to Kill, eh?

They certainly can do that, just as David's piece of leather sling and a rock (with Gods help too of course) helped slay the Philistine Goliath. So slings too are designed to "Project Force" as Frank stated, albeit for offensive or defensive reasons. (or target practice)

David's sling and rock, your or my firearm. One and the same in concept only ours can reach out a bit farther throwing smaller rocks quickly.

So when presented with this (ahem) logic, one could ask of the protaganist, is that why Cops carry guns? To Kill? Or to defend their lives? Or, like the military, to Project Force for a common cause? Intent.

Or all of the above? There is no one answer fits all, except for Ettin's stated Force Projection. (first thing I thought of when I read the thread title, so great minds think alike I suppose, tho mine ain't great for much)
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 05:49 AM   #66
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
That is a piece of false roundabout logic. Let me say it again. Most guns were invented because one day some guy had an idea that boiled down to "Hmmm, we a gun more effective than the ones our enemies use".
hardworker is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:05 AM   #67
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,559
Quote:
One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. After thinking about it for a long while, I came to the conclusion that I have never seen a gun slogan that read, "For when you need a kill." or "More time. More destruction." In fact, most are quite the opposite, GLOCK has "Perfection", Sig has "To hell and back", and FNH has "Distinct Advantage".

Most of these simply imply reliability, accuracy, or just being better than the competition. I don't think that when a gun designer sits down the only thing running through his head is how he can better kill people. I would imagine that they think about reliability, accuracy, durability, ergonomics, compactness, and versatility.

I certainly know that when I buy a gun, those are the qualities I am looking for. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Your question is thought provoking, Shep, . . . but I always prefer to look at the "end result" before I determine if something is good or bad, . . . for ME, and for mine.

On August 6, 1945, . . . thousands of people lost their lives because of one little "Fat boy" bomb.

Ask any survivor of Guam, Okinawa, Tarawa, or Pearl Harbor, . . . especially those who were slated to be on the mainland invasion, . . . they'll probably tell you that nuclear bombs are pretty cool.

AR's are pretty cool, . . . M14's are pretty cool, . . . M1's are pretty cool, . . . M1 carbines are pretty cool, . . . Mini 14's are pretty cool, . . . when they are used to protect ME and mine.

Protection from aggression is the sole reason for having nuclear weaponry, . . . and it goes down the scale from there. Having a better weapon system than the enemy, offers that person the advantage, . . . and to the enemy, . . . disadvantage.

The words used by the anti's to defame, disrespect, defile, and denigrate a weapon system are simply put: bumper sticker lingo and sound bytes to get the attention of the low information voter, or person of interest.

The best example of that was the "representative" in Colorado who proudly proclaimed her part in adding the magazine ban to their recently passed anti gun legislation. She was so far down the information trail that she thought that a magazine was indeed the bullets themselves, . . . and finally, once those "high capacity" magazines were shot up, . . . that the dange would be over.

She was all over her high horse of competence, knowledge, information, capability, . . . and was too stupid to know or understand that 30 round magazines can be reloaded. Those are the people who make up those phrases, bumper stickers, and sound bytes.

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 10:21 AM   #68
Dashunde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 1,691
They're designed to last first and foremost, the killing part is no different than a wood stocked Remington.

In an unfortunate way the firearms we have that are built to last and last through tens of thousands of target rounds and that can handle harsh environments are derived directly from proven military hardware.

The unfortunate part is that form-follows-function and these "assault" firearms we have just appear unsavory to the anti crowd.

I showed my Mom a picture of a AR-10 and a Remington 750 and asked her what the functional differences really were and if any were necessary for storming a elementary school.
She was a little surprised to find out they both shot identical ammo and the differences were mostly cosmetic as a result of the AR being built to last and was able to mount accessories.
She had also always thought the AR's are "machine guns". Explaining the differences between semi auto and full auto took much of the steam out of her dislike of the military variants.
Dashunde is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 07:25 PM   #69
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,751
A firearm is built to expel a soft metal slug through a metal tube by the action of expanding gases. Where that slug may go is completely up to the operator.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old April 4, 2013, 09:26 PM   #70
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 978
Quote:
So when presented with this (ahem) logic, one could ask of the protaganist, is that why Cops carry guns? To Kill? Or to defend their lives? Or, like the military, to Project Force for a common cause? Intent.
Interesting point. I think that perhaps much of society is incapable of separating killing from murdering. Even though a firearm is capable of killing, there are no features that specify its use as a tool of murder, or even self defense. Furthermore, there are many justified, if unfortunate, reasons to use a gun in self defense.

This is where the line in the sand is drawn between the two perceptions of firearms. While both parties acknowledge its ability to kill, one person may envision a murderer using a gun for his evil deeds, while another person may imagine an otherwise defenseless man/woman protecting themselves or others from aggressors.

Also, killing is not necessarily the primary objective of a law enforcement officer, militant, or even a civilian. Few people want to kill another person, but when your life is on the line, the quickest way to save yourself is to quickly incapacitate the target. This is simply defined by the target being incapable, or unwilling to fight back.

Lastly, I still believe that a designer isn't thinking about how to best kill someone when they are assembling a weapon. I think that the priority is likely the safety, well-being, and comfort of the shooter. This is especially true for military arms.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 06:17 AM   #71
hardworker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 820
If comfort and safety were priorities over killing power we would issue the troops fun noodles instead of rifles. Those things are important and certainly do play a role in gun design, but they take a backseat to the main objective of providing a combat worthy firearm. A rifle can be the most comfortable gun ever invented but if it doesn't shoot it is just about worthless
hardworker is offline  
Old April 5, 2013, 12:06 PM   #72
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Peter J Kolikas....

I'd highly suggest any TFLers who want to learn more about modern US military small arms & their real world use by active duty US armed forces & working armed professionals(mercs, PMCs, PMs/SAD, etc) read a few articles by Peter J Kolikas(check spelling).
He was a retired combat arms soldier(US Army) who wrote at length about small arms(rifles, handguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, etc) for SoF(Soldier of Fortune magazine.
Some of the weapons or information may be dated but the concepts are the same.

Carrying or "humping" a battle rifle in the field & using it in combat is a lot different than a gun club range or shop.

CF
ClydeFrog is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12657 seconds with 7 queries