- May 20, 2014
- 34,864
- 23,221
- 1,945
Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Unfortunately, agreed. The anti-gun Left has long proven 1) give them an inch on gun control and they'll reach for a mile and 2) what is "common sense" to the anti-gun Left is not "common sense" to the rest of American voters.and bullshit like this is why we cant have common sense laws.
armor piercing my ass.
On the other hand- the pro-gun Right has long proven that they will oppose any common sense gun control- of any sort- regardless of how much sense it makes- because it is 'gun control'- and of course Americans have the right to own any firearm that exists in the world- along with any ammo that exists.....
you tell me -Unfortunately, agreed. The anti-gun Left has long proven 1) give them an inch on gun control and they'll reach for a mile and 2) what is "common sense" to the anti-gun Left is not "common sense" to the rest of American voters.and bullshit like this is why we cant have common sense laws.
armor piercing my ass.
On the other hand- the pro-gun Right has long proven that they will oppose any common sense gun control- of any sort- regardless of how much sense it makes- because it is 'gun control'- and of course Americans have the right to own any firearm that exists in the world- along with any ammo that exists.....
you tell me -Unfortunately, agreed. The anti-gun Left has long proven 1) give them an inch on gun control and they'll reach for a mile and 2) what is "common sense" to the anti-gun Left is not "common sense" to the rest of American voters.and bullshit like this is why we cant have common sense laws.
armor piercing my ass.
On the other hand- the pro-gun Right has long proven that they will oppose any common sense gun control- of any sort- regardless of how much sense it makes- because it is 'gun control'- and of course Americans have the right to own any firearm that exists in the world- along with any ammo that exists.....
is it common sense to outlaw bullets for being what they are not? should i trust your motives if i happen to know and understand what all this means and then *this* is pulled?
you tell me how you get trust back from the gun community when you blatantly lie about what *you* want?
That's the beauty of having a great selection of firearms to choose from... what works for one guy does not necessarily work for the next.5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
maybe - but i still would like him to answer the question -you tell me -Unfortunately, agreed. The anti-gun Left has long proven 1) give them an inch on gun control and they'll reach for a mile and 2) what is "common sense" to the anti-gun Left is not "common sense" to the rest of American voters.and bullshit like this is why we cant have common sense laws.
armor piercing my ass.
On the other hand- the pro-gun Right has long proven that they will oppose any common sense gun control- of any sort- regardless of how much sense it makes- because it is 'gun control'- and of course Americans have the right to own any firearm that exists in the world- along with any ammo that exists.....
is it common sense to outlaw bullets for being what they are not? should i trust your motives if i happen to know and understand what all this means and then *this* is pulled?
you tell me how you get trust back from the gun community when you blatantly lie about what *you* want?
They don't care about trust...they just care about the raw power needed to push their gun control through state legislatures.......
Never, ever, trust or give quarter to left wing anti gunners. They do not want "common sense" gun control, they want to ban guns.
Agreed. Does anyone here think the nutjob in Oregon would have been able to murder two men if there was one good man with a gun?More frivolous gun laws equals more violent crime… FactProof that more firearms do not equal more deaths from violence… Opposite is trueFunny. I presume you mean politically incestuous, not genetically incestuous. If so, I agree. Their movement does breed with itself.The incestuous nature of anti-gun nutters has bred all commonsense right out of their gene pool.... fact
The main problem, IMO, is that Democrats tend to like "one-size fits all" solutions; they want simple, all-encompassing solutions and don't have the will and/or capacity to realize that the United States is a lot bigger than their own neighborhoods. Gun violence is a problem of urban centers, which are also bastions of Democrats. I live in rural Texas. We don't have a "gun violence" problem like the inner cities have, so why impose laws upon us that only restrict rights and do not solve anything?
Another major problem is that "gun violence" is easily divided into the greater issue of race in America. Most murders are black men murdering black men in the cities. Most "gun violence" suicides are white men. Banning guns won't solve the suicide problem much less cure depression, but it would certainly cut down on the number of black-on-black murders.
Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans | Brookings Institution
Gun deaths also vary dramatically by type. The vast majority (77 percent) of white gun deaths are suicides; less than one in five (19 percent) is a homicide. These figures are nearly opposite in the black population, where only 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides but 82 percent are homicides:
depleted uranium is used in ammo and it is not very radioactive at allWhy not spent uranium?
Got any?
Do you know how long 'spent uranium' is radioactive for?
I'd love to have either a M1 or SA M1A, but you are correct, too pricey. Maybe for my retirement present in a couple years.5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
They'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
yet another attack on the 2nd Amendment.
Judicial Watch Sues the ATF for Records Related to Attempted Reclassification of AR-15 Ammunition as ‘Armor-Piercing’ - Judicial Watch
I'd love to have either a M1 or SA M1A, but you are correct, too pricey. Maybe for my retirement present in a couple years.5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
In the meantime, I've settled on both a DPMS Oracle AR-10 and a couple of Mosin-Nagants for long range rifles.
308 ORACLE
They'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
No they need to find a penetrating round......Nato wont follow......screw emThey'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
Cheaper and effective to just switch to 7.62X39mm....that way our troops can load up ammo off the bodies of dead Russians and North Koreans.They'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching powerNo they need to find a penetrating round......Nato wont follow......screw emThey'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
Cheaper and effective to just switch to 7.62X39mm....that way our troops can load up ammo off the bodies of dead Russians and North Koreans.They'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching powerNo they need to find a penetrating round......Nato wont follow......screw emThey'd like too, but there are both practical and political reasons stopping them. The number one reason is cost. The number two reason is fucking over our allies. After WWII, the US pushed for both NATO and common ammunition. Due to our power, we refused to go to the 9mm even though it was the most common ammunition of our allies, but succeeded in battle rifle ammunition using the NATO 7.62X51MM......then we became involved in the Southeast Asian Wargames (Thank you, Democrats!) and decided to switch from the NATO round to our own 5.56MM. Later, as a consolation, we switched to the NATO 9mm pistol ammo. Now, if we want to switch again, we need to consider our allies in the process.Military is moving on from 5.56......because it lacks punching power
In my opinion the .308 Winchester is the best do all cartridge there is…5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
Maybe for an elk, but I have seen them as well as caribou dropped on the regular with them. As for people, you can bust out the googlefoo
and find plenty of photos of folks who would disagree if they survived their ordeal. You will miss the smell of human flesh ripped to shreds by a 556 round, but you will get the idea. No, it won't bust an engine block, but then neither will a 7.62. .308 is nice in anbolt gun and killing people, but there are way better rounds then he 308 that cost half as much for decent ammo.
In my opinion the .308 Winchester is the best do all cartridge there is…5.56, such puny round.
Nah...308 bolt gun for me.
I'd be happy with an m1 or m14.
Those are very pricey these days.
Maybe for an elk, but I have seen them as well as caribou dropped on the regular with them. As for people, you can bust out the googlefoo
and find plenty of photos of folks who would disagree if they survived their ordeal. You will miss the smell of human flesh ripped to shreds by a 556 round, but you will get the idea. No, it won't bust an engine block, but then neither will a 7.62. .308 is nice in anbolt gun and killing people, but there are way better rounds then he 308 that cost half as much for decent ammo.
Good ballistic coefficient, very affordable, very Readily available, very accurate, little recoil, short action, all kinds of bullets available because it's a 30 caliber...