Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Quick! We have to ban military-style "Assault Weapons"!

Because our troops think that they suck:
Even though I've been pretty much out of The Jawa Report loop for the past month or so, I do get a ton of e-mails daily. From time to time I get an e-mail worthy of sharing with you. This is one. It was forwarded by a reader in the Navy, Mike, who in turn got it from a friend of his in the Marines. You may have seen it making the rounds already. The review of the weapons are one recently returned Marine's opinion [name removed to protect his identity] and does not necessarily mean a consensus has formed. If you scroll to the end you'll also see an assessment of our enemiy's capability as well as those of our allies.

As the son and grandson of two very fine Marines, let me wish all those fighting in Iraq all the best and God speed in a final victory over the enemies of the United States of America.


1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. [The Marine] says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.

Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
This was from 2005 so it's a little dated, but the feedback on the .223 is something that is pretty common feedback from the sharp end of the spear.  And yet Progressives say it's the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER to ban scary black rifles chambered for the poodle shooter round.  The key point, once again:
They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
If you click through you'll find that The Guys don't like the 9mm either.  So quick, ban a double stack magazine so that people won't be able to defend themselves in their own homes.

Proposals from ignorant idiots.


Old NFO said...

Nothing new, saw the same complaints back in 90-91... And the banners, they don't care since THEY have security...

wolfwalker said...

Complaints about the M-16/M-4 and its poodleshooter 5.56mm round go back to when it was first adopted in the mid-1960s. Complaints about the Europellet handgun round are almost as old. There's a reason that the Marines keep a few M1911A1s and M-14s hanging around the armories.

Dave H said...

Apparently the Russkies were supposed to be civilized enough to lie down and quit fighting after being shot, no matter how small the caliber. Today's opponents just don't have any manners.

deadcenter said...

I had a psych professor on college that talked about the studies conducted on high heels and it's effect on the muscles of the legs and how it made women more attractive to men and that was 25 years ago.

Tam said...

I would take that with a big fat grain of salt.

Everybody I know who verifiably shot m_____f___ers in the face for a living has no real complaints with the M4.

Generally, when someone goes on like this, their voice goes all Charlie Brown's Teacher on me. I had to listen to this crap from pseudo Nam vets for years working in gun stores before the GWOT.

The Czar of Muscovy said...

I usually question anecdotal claims about the M16's alleged poor performance; there's no coverup here: some Marines don't like it. Ditto for the 9mm. It ain't Daddy's .45, so they hate it.

They're welcome to their opinions. But an M14, or whatever weapon it is the people in these stories want, is going to foul up just as badly in sand as anything. Maybe worse.

We're talking about 1%? Maybe 2% of The Guys? The vast majority seem to be working pretty damn well with the tools they have.

These anecdotes are an argument from authority fallacy: the M16 is a superb (and quite awesome) weapons system, as is an M9 pistol (though I can't hit the side of a barn with one myself). I disregard these as quickly as I disregard the "AK vs AR" argument. It's tired, old, and will never be won by either side.

"Poor cinderblock penetration." Does anyone else think there's something quite misleading about that?

Borepatch said...

Czar, I agree that this is anecdotal, but I haven't seen any analysis of how many rounds it's taken to put 'em down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just haven't heard of any rigorous studies (likely either not done or classified) and so anecdote is what we have.

But this keeps coming up over and over as anecdote.

Tam, your point is valid that this is one of the religious war topics from the boards and so there may just be some of that alive and well in the military. But even that is evidence that banning assault weapons is only proposed by people who simply don't know what they're talking about.

Which was the point of my post.

Tam said...

100% agree on that.

goober said...

No standard military ball ammo from a typical shoulder fired rifle is going to reliably penetrate cinder block. It will pulverize from such a solid target. I don't care if you're shooting an m1 garand.

And this whole argument falls flat anyway. A dedicated religious fanatic with an AK is not equal to or even similar to a classroom full of elementary school students. I'm not about to get into a discussion about whether the 556 is enough round to reliably "put down" a six year old, and that's the only direction that this conversation can head. I'd rethink this particular line of questioning counselor.

Stretch said...

They can have my .45-70 Trapdoor when ...
Never mind.