• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

thebolt

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Apr 15, 2006
171
77
Colorado
<span style="font-weight: bold">Anyone know what these bullets are?</span>

Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

The Marine Corps is dropping its conventional 5.56mm ammunition in Afghanistan in favor of new deadlier, more accurate rifle rounds, and could field them at any time. The open-tipped rounds until now have been available only to Special Operations Command troops. The first 200,000 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology rounds are already downrange with Marine Expeditionary Brigade-Afghanistan, said the commander of Marine Corps Systems Command. Commonly known as “SOST” rounds, they were legally cleared for Marine use by the Pentagon in late January, according to Navy Department documents. SOCom developed the new rounds for use with the Special Operations Force Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, which needed a more accurate bullet because its short barrel, at 13.8 inches, is less than an inch shorter than the M4 carbine’s. Compared to the M855, SOST rounds also stay on target longer in open air and have increased stopping power through “consistent, rapid fragmentation which shortens the time required to cause incapacitation of enemy combatants,” according to Navy Department documents. “This round was really intended to be used in a weapon with a shorter barrel, their SCAR carbines,” the Marine Corps Systems Commander said. “But because of its blind-to-barrier performance, its accuracy improvements and its reduced muzzle flash, those are attractive things that make it also useful to general purpose forces like the Marine Corps and Army.”



Source: http://militarytimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

match grade 5.56? Article says its a variant of the bear claw ammo
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

With all due respect, when the islamic jihadists sign onto the Geneva Convention, I'll favor FMJ ammo.

Until then, I suggest Ballistic Tips.

It's not like our folks are facing uniformed regulars. This not a war. This is crime prevention and deterrence. Last heard, cops were issued hollow points.

Time we stopped playing lords and lances.

There is no protocol and no polite discourse here. There are only sociopaths, and so far we've been treating them with respect. They don't deserve respect. They deserve extreme prejudice. Extreme...

If you doubt me, go take a walk in the Battery section of Manhattan. There are still nearly 3000 souls crying out for justice.

Uniformed military deserve respect, and our leadership is paying these psychos a compliment they never earned.

If you can't hear that, hear this. This is taking too long. We know how to do this. We know where the problem is. They want to die. We want to kill them.

What's the holdup?

(<span style="font-style: italic">...but nobody listens to me...</span>)
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect, when the islamic jihadists sign onto the Geneva Convention, I'll favor FMJ ammo.

Until then, I suggest Ballistic Tips.

It's not like our folks are facing uniformed regulars. This not a war. This is crime prevention and deterrence. Last heard, cops were issued hollow points.

Time we stopped playing lords and lances.

There is no protocol and no polite discourse here. There are only sociopaths, and so far we've been treating them with respect. They don' deserve respect. They deserve extreme prejudice. Extreme...

If you doubt me, go take a walk in the Battery section of Manhattan. There are still nearly 3000 souls crying out for justice.

Uniformed military deserve respect, and our leadership is paying these psychos a compliment they never earned.

If you can't hear that, hear this. This is taking too long. We know how to do this. We know where the problem is. They want to die. We want to kill them.

What's the holdup?</div></div>

Well said. +1
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Hear Hear!
No enemy who has not signed onto the Geneva Convention deserves the treatment guranteed by such signature. It is a document and an idea that has outlived it's usefulness so we should therefore remove ourselves from it.
If our government entities say a few drops of water are torture, then maybe they should remember what our Viet Nam POW vets went through(THAT was torture).
Ballistic Tips, Hollow POints, Exploding rounbds filled with nanobots, have at it! Scourge the Earth and Lay Flame to all those who support, defend, and let live all terrorrists!
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Good shit and tahnks for the powerpoint.


Looks like we have some good rounds in the works thanks to the outstanding people at Crane (and very nice people as well btw).


The 300wm load looks tits
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

It has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion (regarding what bullets to use), and I fully favor the use of JHPs, ballistic tips, or other more lethal bullets by the military. I did want to point out, though, that the logic you're using re: the Geneva Convention is the exact same logic Hitler used to justify the German treatment of Soviet citizens, soldiers, partisans, and POWs in WWII because the Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention.

Now, I'm not comparing anyone here to Hitler. Nor am I saying that the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are even remotely similar to what was the single largest and most brutal conflict (the Eastern Front) to ever be waged on this planet. I just think it's something to think about. When you go tossing out the idea of ignoring the Geneva Convention it's a good idea to also consider where a policy like that could lead, where it has led in the past, or where it stops. Ignore one aspect and it becomes much easier to ignore the next, then the next, and so on.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

You know what happens when only one side plays by the rules, right! No more war with rules that favor the enemy!
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

So many statement here, voicing near the same opinion.

Now that is harmony. Sure would be nice to do the right thing over there, in this liberal age of 'do the right thing' eh?
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect, when the islamic jihadists sign onto the Geneva Convention, I'll favor FMJ ammo.

Until then, I suggest Ballistic Tips.

It's not like our folks are facing uniformed regulars. This not a war. This is crime prevention and deterrence. Last heard, cops were issued hollow points.

Time we stopped playing lords and lances.

There is no protocol and no polite discourse here. There are only sociopaths, and so far we've been treating them with respect. They don't deserve respect. They deserve extreme prejudice. Extreme...

If you doubt me, go take a walk in the Battery section of Manhattan. There are still nearly 3000 souls crying out for justice.

Uniformed military deserve respect, and our leadership is paying these psychos a compliment they never earned.

If you can't hear that, hear this. This is taking too long. We know how to do this. We know where the problem is. They want to die. We want to kill them.

What's the holdup?

(<span style="font-style: italic">...but nobody listens to me...</span>) </div></div>

Very well stated, indeed.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

A little dab of bacon grease will work on at least eight M16 mags but I wouldn't know anything about that from OEF VII. It's not like anyone was really hurt or anything. A little CLP, a little bacon grease, fingertip, rub the nose of the bullet, then into the mag. Sure it has no bearing on what the bullet does, but MAN the religious impact? WOW! What fun to know your enemy is denied entry into heaven because he has consumed pork. Well kinda involutarily injected...

War is a barbaric business. When suits and ties, soft thinking individuals, bean counters, and bleeding hearts start placing rules on warriors, war becomes a drudgery. It becomes slothlike in it's movement. It loses the powerful acts of warriors acheiving total victory at all costs, and it lets the enemy dictate how it's fought. When the enemy is totally obliterated with extreme prejudice to the last man, woman, and child and his world is scorched so that his kind never exist again, then and only then can the warrior rest until the next worthy enemy raises it's head to be fought. Absolute, total victory with no rules. Burn the villages that allow the terrorrist and insurgent to hide therein. Scorch the states that allow their people to become insurgents and suicide bombers. Burn the governments to the ground who do nothing when their peoples act visciously.
In other words, if they offend so judisciously, crush their skull with a big stick.
Pork filled hollow points, bacon and rib sauced tracers, then finish it with a neutron bomb. Flatten them into submission. God will indeed sort the good from the bad when it's time, but our children will grow to fear no one, and fear nothing. Me, I'll sit back with a good cigar, a glass of bourbon, and enjoy the fact that we are indeed the most powerful motherfucker on the planet.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

I agree, but i believe it was the Hague convention that banned the use of expanding bullets, not the Geneva. And i don't think the United States ever signed on.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Darn I thought they were going nuclear.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Cross sections of the bullet look like a Barnes bullet hybrid with a massive penetrator instead of the tiny dart found in M855.

sost_round-tfb.png
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With all due respect, when the islamic jihadists sign onto the Geneva Convention, I'll favor FMJ ammo.

Until then, I suggest Ballistic Tips.

It's not like our folks are facing uniformed regulars. This not a war. This is crime prevention and deterrence. Last heard, cops were issued hollow points.

Time we stopped playing lords and lances.

There is no protocol and no polite discourse here. There are only sociopaths, and so far we've been treating them with respect. They don't deserve respect. They deserve extreme prejudice. Extreme...

If you doubt me, go take a walk in the Battery section of Manhattan. There are still nearly 3000 souls crying out for justice.

Uniformed military deserve respect, and our leadership is paying these psychos a compliment they never earned.

If you can't hear that, hear this. This is taking too long. We know how to do this. We know where the problem is. They want to die. We want to kill them.

What's the holdup?

(<span style="font-style: italic">...but nobody listens to me...</span>)</div></div>
+1

But it sounds like too much common sense. That's outlawed for the higher ups in the Military, and Government in General.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

It's great to know that you guys don't like the rules over in A-stan and all of that shit.


This thread <span style="text-decoration: line-through">is</span> was about new ammunition...
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MLC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cross sections of the bullet look like a Barnes bullet hybrid with a massive penetrator instead of the tiny dart found in M855.

sost_round-tfb.png
</div></div>

That's where the lead goes.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Glad that they are using a more potent/accurate round.

If the powers that be would think before they send troops into harms way, think about war...

War is meant to be won - as fast as humanly possible to get the desired result accomplished.

How it's accomplished SHOULD be in the most expeditious way possible, not with a bunch of rules that make it draw out, lag on...


IF a said enemy does not play by the "Rules" , therein should be an allowance of suspension of the rules.

The British suspended the rules when we took ouit officers and sniped from trees and fought in "Ungentleman ways" - it happens.

This pussyfooting around is just getting people killed.

I'll send the first box of Winchester silvertips and Federal Hydrashocks over if they allow it..
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M1AShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I agree, but i believe it was the Hague convention that banned the use of expanding bullets, not the Geneva. And i don't think the United States ever signed on. </div></div>

Yeah it was the Hague Convention.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Hague, Geneva; sorry if I got that part wrong.

I'm also just ever so pleased to see we're not comparing anyone here with Hitler. As long as we're not doing that, the reference becomes..., confusing distraction.., perhaps.?

Bullet expansion and warfare have been snarled and entangled with emotions, facts, ideals, and functionality so thoroughly that they cannot be separated. I don't see wounding vs killing as being a soldier's choice, but rather a coincidental outcome. When I shot at folks, I was definitely intending to kill them, and they, me. FMJ just made it necessary to do it repeatedly, and seemed rather counterproductive to me. The enemy, undoubtedly, likewise.

I can't say with any certainty whomever it was who dreamt up the idea that bullets for warfare should not expand. I am rather more convinced it wasn't a soldier, but rather, some sob sister with their shorts in a twist over the blindingly brilliant concept that making war less horrific was an enviable goal. Their result was to prolong the agony and bring it to a wider audience. Simply put, the idea, from its pretty surface to its dessicated core, is prime bullsh*t of the first water.

The idea that a less lethal war is more desirable is wrongheaded thinking. Sure, let's develop thermobaric ordnance, but for goodness sakes, let's never even consider an expanding bullet. Right. Me, I want war to be so despicably horrific that non-soldiers, who actually declare all the wars, shy away from it with several more magnitudes more of horror than they might an ultimate disfiguring, torturing plague.

War is not tiddly winks. Conventions are like what the mice did when they voted to bell the cat. Stuff 'em.

Greg
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

I cant say i agree with bombing the states who produce suicide bombers, one of your own pilots in Texas just did the same thing recently, and i don't see the point, apart from on a spiteful level, of rubbing your ammo in pork fat, but i do see the need for more effective methods of KILLING your enemy, not just shooting them, but killing them. A wounded soldier can fight again, a dead one cannot. So, i'm all for more effective ammo. Heck if you could fit a little miniature nuke in each 5.56 round, and guarantee a dead target every single time u pulled the trigger, with minimum collateral damage, id support it 100%
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Fine, maybe I shouldn't have said I wasn't comparing anyone here to Hitler. Maybe I am. It doesn't matter. The fact remains that if you want to see what a modern war fought with no rules looks like all you need to do is spend a couple of weeks studying the Eastern Front. If you walk away from your studies wishing all war was like that then hey, we're all entitled to our opinions right?
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Chuff, i don't disagree with you, war is brutal enough as is, and, also, i don't think ive ever enjoyed watching a woman sneeze quite so much, its almost mesmerizing.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chuff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion (regarding what bullets to use), and I fully favor the use of JHPs, ballistic tips, or other more lethal bullets by the military. I did want to point out, though, that the logic you're using re: the Geneva Convention is the exact same logic Hitler used to justify the German treatment of Soviet citizens, soldiers, partisans, and POWs in WWII because the Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention.

Now, I'm not comparing anyone here to Hitler. Nor am I saying that the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are even remotely similar to what was the single largest and most brutal conflict (the Eastern Front) to ever be waged on this planet. I just think it's something to think about. When you go tossing out the idea of ignoring the Geneva Convention it's a good idea to also consider where a policy like that could lead, where it has led in the past, or where it stops. Ignore one aspect and it becomes much easier to ignore the next, then the next, and so on. </div></div>

+1

It's our adherence to ideals like the Geneva Convention that make us better. No need to fall into the trap of "if they do it, so can we".

If we can't beat them with superior training, smart bombs, special forces, tanks and such, different bullets won't matter at all.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

I advocated the use of lethal ammo. No rules? Your words, not mine.

American troops suffer no lack of conscientious guidance and reasonable oversight.

I guess anyone can speculate. I got my viewpoint from actual experience in combat.

My only knowledge of the Eastern Front comes from my Wife's family history. She's from Germany. Her Grandfather and three Uncles were Wehrmacht draftees. The Uncles are buried on the Eastern Front. Their Father returned, minus an eye, and raised my Wife.

Done here.

Greg
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickbugs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i don't see the point, apart from on a spiteful level, of rubbing your ammo in pork fat...</div></div>
Spiteful, yes indeed. When you see so many lost faces in the papers that you used to see every day war becomes quite personal. I have known many men and a few women who have lost their lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I used to see these faces each and every day. When they showed up in the Army Times or The Mountaineer it was like a kick to the groin. If rubbing a little bacon grease on bullets made me feel better about all that when I was deployed, cool. If people don't like what I did, so what, I don't really care. When you lose count of how many, just from your base, have lost their lives little shit like that just doesn't make for much ado. One deployment, 54 were lost. Each year, two brigades were out, sometimes three. HQ deployes every three cycles trading off with AA, and 101. I just don't want the figure from 9-11-01 to 12/09 on just how many were lost from my base while I was there.

BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. If the bullet expands so violently it hurts, good. If it breaks up, even better. I have no love for those people and wish them all they deserve
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Whats the problem here? They aspire to martyrdom, we want to kill them. Works for me...
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whats the problem here? They aspire to martyrdom, we want to kill them. Works for me... </div></div>

Exactly!
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. </div></div>

Here's my question for you . . .

If we had a foreign army here in the US trying to dictate to us what is right and what is wrong, would any sort of bullet used by the enemy deter you from fighting?

I didn't think so.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hear Hear!
No enemy who has not signed onto the Geneva Convention deserves the treatment guranteed by such signature. It is a document and an idea that has outlived it's usefulness so we should therefore remove ourselves from it.
If our government entities say a few drops of water are torture, then maybe they should remember what our Viet Nam POW vets went through(THAT was torture).
Ballistic Tips, Hollow POints, Exploding rounbds filled with nanobots, have at it! Scourge the Earth and Lay Flame to all those who support, defend, and let live all terrorrists! </div></div>

That being said does the Raufoss have any issues?
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

If anyone here honestly believes that the terms non-lethal and less lethal have valid places in armed combat, raise your right hands.

Any of <span style="font-style: italic">those</span> who've survived combat, your meds need adjustment. Those who haven't, thank you for your contributions, your banners and message tee's are waiting for you in the next room...

I'm sorry. I know I'm supposed to employ reasonable respect and decency my discourse with fellow forum members, and I try. But sometimes I just have to throw in the towel and say it right out there plain and clear. <span style="text-decoration: line-through">Some of you are morons.</span> <span style="font-style: italic">(I apologize, that was harsh and uncalled for...)</span> You don't know your rhetoric from your reality. Your experience level in areas upon which you launch your most elequent, erudite expositions is just marginally smaller than your experience with walking on the moon.

Stick with you <span style="font-style: italic">know</span>. Please...

Greg
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Actually, instruments which are <span style="font-style: italic">less-lethal</span> and <span style="font-style: italic">non-lethal</span> have appropriate applications in the spectrum of means in the achievement of the goal - which is not to kill the enemy, but to make him do your will.

Once the shooting starts, though, the goal is to reduce the threat of a person or persons employing or attempting to employ lethal force - and such persons have no legitimate claim to merciful treatment.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

That's true, Lindy, and I stand corrected.

My comment was geared more toward open, heated combat.

Greg
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's true, Lindy, and I stand corrected.

My comment was geared more toward open, heated combat.

Greg </div></div>

Let them fly. Whatever bullets you choose. In the end, however, I'm just not sure that it matters in the scale of larger conflict. On the individual battle level, perhaps. There is more to winning wars than causing more death than your enemies cause you.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. </div></div>

Here's my question for you . . .

If we had a foreign army here in the US trying to dictate to us what is right and what is wrong, would any sort of bullet used by the enemy deter you from fighting?

I didn't think so. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickbugs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i don't see the point, apart from on a spiteful level, of rubbing your ammo in pork fat...</div></div>
Spiteful, yes indeed. When you see so many lost faces in the papers that you used to see every day war becomes quite personal. I have known many men and a few women who have lost their lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I used to see these faces each and every day. When they showed up in the Army Times or The Mountaineer it was like a kick to the groin. If rubbing a little bacon grease on bullets made me feel better about all that when I was deployed, cool. If people don't like what I did, so what, I don't really care. When you lose count of how many, just from your base, have lost their lives little shit like that just doesn't make for much ado. One deployment, 54 were lost. Each year, two brigades were out, sometimes three. HQ deployes every three cycles trading off with AA, and 101. I just don't want the figure from 9-11-01 to 12/09 on just how many were lost from my base while I was there.

BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. If the bullet expands so violently it hurts, good. If it breaks up, even better. I have no love for those people and wish them all they deserve </div></div>

Ive gotta agree with switch on this one. War is war and whatever tactic that can be used to gain an edge should be. Now the pork fat thing I think should be used as more of a deterant to them fighting(as switch put it doesnt help the bullet at all), but if the enemy knew we were putting pork fat onto our bullets that would make them think twice about engaging us. The reason it will is because they are religous fanatics. Theyre will to fight comes from the knowledge that after they die they will be taken care of. If that idea is now wavering and they are having second thoughts, then better for us, they lose all will to die. The reason that would never happen here is because the majority of the people in the US dont believe in such a thing, or sensationalize the outcome of their religous belief.

The bullet itself should have no bearing besides being a better killer. Its the tactic that needs to be deployed, thats what tends to help with wars such as this. Not only killing your enemy instead of wounding him. Killing him and making his buddies not want to fight.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

'leaf; you nailed it.

One does not win wars by destroying an enemy's armys. One wins wars by destroying an enemy's economy.

But when American shoeleather (or whatever..) is on the ground, killing the enemy is the order of the day, at least until the civilian authority says, 'stop'. While the weapons are free, there's no 'yes, but...' allowed. You either wage war with the full capacity available, or you step outside the box entirely. Halfway is for gamers.

Greg
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

I wonder if " In an effort to reduce possible civilian casualties during longer range engagements, the USMC has adopted a more accurate ammo previously available to Special Operations Soldiers." Would have been more easily swallowed..
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">'leaf; you nailed it.

One does not win wars by destroying an enemy's armys. One wins wars by destroying an enemy's economy.

But when American shoeleather (or whatever..) is on the ground, killing the enemy is the order of the day, at least until the civilian authority says, 'stop'. While the weapons are free, there's no 'yes, but...' allowed. You either wage war with the full capacity available, or you step outside the box entirely. Halfway is for gamers.

Greg </div></div>

This seems sensible. I suppose we've been speaking from different points of view. You've been addressing the use of these bullets in individual engagements, whereas I've been looking at their use on the larger scale of the war as a whole. In individual engagements they will likely make a difference. More of the enemy may die or be permanently incapacitated. In the larger context, I don't think it has one iota of effect on making the enemy stop.

As I said, the Chinese deciding to use JHPs v FMJs were they occupying our soil might only make our resolve stronger. It certainly wouldn't kill our will to fight.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. </div></div>

Here's my question for you . . .

If we had a foreign army here in the US trying to dictate to us what is right and what is wrong, would any sort of bullet used by the enemy deter you from fighting?

I didn't think so. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickbugs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i don't see the point, apart from on a spiteful level, of rubbing your ammo in pork fat...</div></div>
Spiteful, yes indeed. When you see so many lost faces in the papers that you used to see every day war becomes quite personal. I have known many men and a few women who have lost their lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I used to see these faces each and every day. When they showed up in the Army Times or The Mountaineer it was like a kick to the groin. If rubbing a little bacon grease on bullets made me feel better about all that when I was deployed, cool. If people don't like what I did, so what, I don't really care. When you lose count of how many, just from your base, have lost their lives little shit like that just doesn't make for much ado. One deployment, 54 were lost. Each year, two brigades were out, sometimes three. HQ deployes every three cycles trading off with AA, and 101. I just don't want the figure from 9-11-01 to 12/09 on just how many were lost from my base while I was there.

BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. If the bullet expands so violently it hurts, good. If it breaks up, even better. I have no love for those people and wish them all they deserve </div></div>

Ive gotta agree with switch on this one. War is war and whatever tactic that can be used to gain an edge should be. Now the pork fat thing I think should be used as more of a deterant to them fighting(as switch put it doesnt help the bullet at all), but if the enemy knew we were putting pork fat onto our bullets that would make them think twice about engaging us. The reason it will is because they are religous fanatics. Theyre will to fight comes from the knowledge that after they die they will be taken care of. If that idea is now wavering and they are having second thoughts, then better for us, they lose all will to die. The reason that would never happen here is because the majority of the people in the US dont believe in such a thing, or sensationalize the outcome of their religous belief.

The bullet itself should have no bearing besides being a better killer. Its the tactic that needs to be deployed, thats what tends to help with wars such as this. Not only killing your enemy instead of wounding him. Killing him and making his buddies not want to fight. </div></div>

The use of pork fat will mean absolutely nothing, and may perhaps inflame the enemy's will to fight even more.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Just a short comment on the use of“more lethal ammo in Afghanistan.” There a vastly different reasons for the use and selection of ammo. I feel that the “ultra lethal..bla, bla, bla,” ammo should be reserved for the more elite units. The good-ol’ ground-pounder, jarhead, etc., should stick to the old FMJ. These rounds are so much more effective at wounding (creating a need for additional resources and support), than killing (just need a dragger and bagger). Nothing more demoralizing than watching your rag-headed terrorist buddy slowly bleed out in his own shit. Understandably, I do think any soldier that is doing urban work (search, breeching, etc.,) should have any round that ensures the greatest probability for one shot drops.
Not trying to piss in anyone’s MRE, just my thoughts.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. </div></div>

Here's my question for you . . .

If we had a foreign army here in the US trying to dictate to us what is right and what is wrong, would any sort of bullet used by the enemy deter you from fighting?

I didn't think so. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sickbugs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...i don't see the point, apart from on a spiteful level, of rubbing your ammo in pork fat...</div></div>
Spiteful, yes indeed. When you see so many lost faces in the papers that you used to see every day war becomes quite personal. I have known many men and a few women who have lost their lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I used to see these faces each and every day. When they showed up in the Army Times or The Mountaineer it was like a kick to the groin. If rubbing a little bacon grease on bullets made me feel better about all that when I was deployed, cool. If people don't like what I did, so what, I don't really care. When you lose count of how many, just from your base, have lost their lives little shit like that just doesn't make for much ado. One deployment, 54 were lost. Each year, two brigades were out, sometimes three. HQ deployes every three cycles trading off with AA, and 101. I just don't want the figure from 9-11-01 to 12/09 on just how many were lost from my base while I was there.

BULLETS:
If they go ahead and use hollowpoints that destroy the enemy's will will to fight, super. If the bullet expands so violently it hurts, good. If it breaks up, even better. I have no love for those people and wish them all they deserve </div></div>

Ive gotta agree with switch on this one. War is war and whatever tactic that can be used to gain an edge should be. Now the pork fat thing I think should be used as more of a deterant to them fighting(as switch put it doesnt help the bullet at all), but if the enemy knew we were putting pork fat onto our bullets that would make them think twice about engaging us. The reason it will is because they are religous fanatics. Theyre will to fight comes from the knowledge that after they die they will be taken care of. If that idea is now wavering and they are having second thoughts, then better for us, they lose all will to die. The reason that would never happen here is because the majority of the people in the US dont believe in such a thing, or sensationalize the outcome of their religous belief.

The bullet itself should have no bearing besides being a better killer. Its the tactic that needs to be deployed, thats what tends to help with wars such as this. Not only killing your enemy instead of wounding him. Killing him and making his buddies not want to fight. </div></div>

The use of pork fat will mean absolutely nothing, and may perhaps inflame the enemy's will to fight even more. </div></div>

You dont think that putting a fear into the enemy that dealt with their sense of inner drive would stop some of them from wanting to fight? You cant honestly believe that. Maybe the use of pork and muslimism isnt the best scenario...but ive got to believe if youre fighting an enemy using mentally degrading tactics, you would get them to think twice.

to an extent I think youre right as it would make some want to fight even harder, thats why they hate us...for our way of life. But I also think that some would be terrified of not having their promised afterlife and would give up completely as their death would be in veign.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: smithc6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You dont think that putting a fear into the enemy that dealt with their sense of inner drive would stop some of them from wanting to fight? You cant honestly believe that. Maybe the use of pork and muslimism isnt the best scenario...but ive got to believe if youre fighting an enemy using mentally degrading tactics, you would get them to think twice.

to an extent I think youre right as it would make some want to fight even harder, thats why they hate us...for our way of life. But I also think that some would be terrified of not having their promised afterlife and would give up completely as their death would be in veign. </div></div>

Nah.

And saying that their motives are simply that "they hate our way of life" is very simplistic. They know nothing of our way of life as surely as I have no clue what it is to live in a shithole house,in a shithole village in the middle of fucking nowhere Afghanistan.

Though the terrorists that have been marketed to us as the instigators of aggression are the delusional nutfucks we think they are (the Bin Laden's of the world), your average Afghan fighter (we'll call him Josef the shit digger) very likely has no meaningful affiliations with that same ideology other than it gives them the opportunity to strike out at an invading force. I can't necessarily say that I hate the Chinese and their way of life, but I can say for certain that I would hate them for sure if they showed up on American shores (and I can guarantee you 100% that I am more informed about China than your average rural Afghan is about America). Though it may seem unthinkable to us, those in the middle east do have valid reasons for grievance. We have been concerned only with draining their natural resources for our own benefit, and interested in giving nothing back for decades. They are impoverished, and we actively exploit that. There is a real reason it's not that hard to recruit youngsters in a mosque, and it's not as simple as "they hate us." That's what we tell ourselves to resolve ourselves of blame.

I'm not trying to justify terrorist actions, but to lop every single fighter in with the Bin Laden's of the war, of which there are many, is greatly oversimplifying a very complex problem with which we are very much intertwined.

And no, I have no doubt that running bullets through pork fat prior to shooting them will do absolutely nothing to halt the enemy's will to fight. They have been in 2 very long engagements with both the USSR and now the Americans, arguably the 2 largest and most powerful militaries in the world (of course when the USSR was the USSR). They are hardened warriors, not your run of the mill muslim extremest we've been led to believe all of the resistance is.
 
Re: Corps to use more lethal ammo in Afghanistan

Wounding jihadists may not be an optimal outcome.

They become 'living martyrs', and their individual gaggles of 72 virgins each jus' keep gettin' bitchier and bitchier 'cause they're not gettin' any younger, and their biological clocks keep goin', and goin', and goin'... ("<span style="font-style: italic">Hey Achmed, git a move on...</span>").

Hey folks, I say, jus' give 'em what they want...

Greg