5.56 NATO

3 Responses to 5.56 NATO

1. Scott says:

   June 16, 2006 at 8:52 am

   Perhaps the 5.56 wouldn\’t be such a failure if it weren\’t for the ammuntion. In this article, gun expert Massad Ayoob writes:

   The military is bound by the codes of international warfare, going back to the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Accords, all of which predated napalm, chemical warfare, and the concept of thermonuclear war. Interestingly, the Judge Advocate General’s office has already determined that these restrictions apply to declared wars between recognized nation-states, not things like the current “war on terrorism,” but that’s another story.

   The Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords require that the bullets used not be designed to expand. Essentially, they call for full metal jacket projectiles that just punch neat, clean holes through the bodies of enemy soldiers. Ironically, in the name of human decency, virtually every state in the union forbids the use of such ammunition against deer, bear, or other big game. The reason is that it tends to result in slow death and is not humane.
   …

   I am sure that this makes good sense to the generals behind the lines, and the bean counters behind them. However, the soldier who is bad breath distance away from an Al-Qaeda fanatic with an AK47 doesn’t just want his opposite number wounded, he wants him instantly out of the fight at the moment the bullet hits him.

   The main reason countries agree to these limits on methods of war is to get their opponents to do the same. We need good hunting rounds in our boys (and girls) weapons in Iraq. At least until a new 7.62 XM8 rifle is deployed.
2. Scott says:

   June 16, 2006 at 5:33 pm

   Oh well, looks like the XM8 was cancelled at the end of last year.

3. Pingback: sammytaylor.net

Comments are closed.