Obama: U.S. troops in Afghanistan forced to arm themselves with stolen Taliban weapons; Update: Blackfive comments; Update: More comments; Update: Pure nonsense?
posted at 11:30 pm on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Ace is skeptical, milblogger Charlie Foxtrot is skeptical, I’m skeptical but resolutely agnostic, partly due to my ignorance of all things military and partly because I’ve heard enough complaints about underequipped troops in Iraq not to scoff at claims like this. Even so — scavenging for weapons from jihadi cavemen? He says a captain told him this personally so it’s conveniently impossible to check, but if it’s true it surely can’t be the only time it’s happened so word must have gotten around. Any milbloggers willing and able to confirm or deny? Are our guys actually duct-taping Kalashnikovs together as a matter of routine practice, or is this probably a case of a unit being caught underarmed in battle somehow and making do with whatever they could find on the fly?
Update: Matt Burden at Blackfive e-mails to say:
Sounds out of touch and likely a guy from IVAW or VoteVets told him that. HOWEVER, SF will carry AK’s because it’s easier to scrounge ammo and it’s a better weapon. One of our authors, Deebow, was on the Paki border, fought the Taliban daily, and had to scrounge mortars from a nearby SF unit. So, it’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely.
And Army Captains don’t command platoons (some Marines do, but not Soldiers)…
Update: Blackfive e-mails again to say this comment at Flopping Aces is “dead on.”
Update: Stuart Koehl at the Standard says it’s boatloads of crap:
Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been “sent to Iraq.” Sorry, the Army doesn’t work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can’t break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics…
The idea that our guys were scrounging weapons and ammo because they were short is ludicrous. How much ammo you carry is done on a “per man” basis in the infantry–each solder carries a “basic load,” which is backed up by reserve supplies at company, battalion, and above. It is possible to run out of ammunition, temporarily, in the midst of an intense firefight…
To the best of my knowledge, no U.S. forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq ever ran out of ammunition for more than a few hours at most. When you consider that we were operating in Afghanistan at the tenuous end of a 8,000 mile supply line, that’s pretty impressive.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Enrique….not to mention that you don’t just leave enemy weapons and ammo laying around after you leave a victorious firefight. You certainly don’t want the guys who fled the scene to just stroll on back in behind you and pick up their stuff to use another time.
Yeah, this guy would be great as Commander in Chief.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 10:36 AM
I believe the major jamming problems in ‘Nam were corrected when they changed the ammo powder type and chromed the inside of the receiver. However, I’ve read that the fine dust enviorment in Iraq and Afghanistan can create a problem unless the weapons are kept scrupously clean, which probably isn’t always possible. M-16/AR types have much closer machined tolerances than the AKs, thus are less forgiving. I believe Sec of Defense Bob McNamara and his arrogant Yale whizkids were responsible for the switch to 5.56mm while ignoring the screams of opposition from the real fighting guys. I can’t wait to see what an Obama appointed Sec of Defense will do.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM
It seems like we are missing the whole point here. This is not about whether our troops have a better weapon or have no weapons. Both Hillary and Obama will tell their audience what they want to hear. Truth has nothing to do with it. If you stop to think about it, the audience they pander to does not want to solve a problem, they want someone else to solve it for them. They prey on the fear that you may have to take any responsibility for your own life. Why should you have to forgo your big screen or shinny new vehicle to pay for health care. Our troops are ill equipped, a good reason to bring them home. These two candidates have only one agenda, to get the presidency by any means.
We can spend our time picking apart all the individual inaccuracies in their speeches when we should be calling them out to prove it with facts that wash. They have no substance which scares me as it should you, because there seems to be a growing number of our population that wants government to solve everything. Welcome to “La La Land”.
Personally, I prefer the Garand or the M14, I like to reach out and touch someone.
N4646W on February 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM
a capella I’d expect Sec Def Medea Benjamin to put all our troops on a mass trial for war crimes.
It could be just like those 18,000 person Obamassiah rallies, except for all the seats will be filled with soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 10:43 AM
This is the elephant in the room of so many threads that no one really wants to see. The US population is not what it once was. Liberalism’s promises are attractive and seductive to unintelligent people. Prior generations didn’t really have to fight this virus off like we are forced to do now. It will undo our society like it has others. Our present course is a death spiral. It will be averted only through enormous upheaval. It’s only a matter of time.
JiangxiDad on February 22, 2008 at 10:49 AM
True. The .223 is a fast flat shooting round with a very flat tragectory. What makes it magic is “Hypershock”, In gelatin tests, the .223 bullet would tumble on contact and make a real mess, about the same as a .308 M14 round. It is usually a 55 or 65 grain bullet, but they hit hard. The 7.62 X 39 which an AK 47 uses is a 123 grain bullet. They smack plenty hard too, but the .223 is smaller and lighter, so you can carry more rounds.
The new AK 74 (you can tell them because they have an orange magazine or clip) shoots a 5.45mm round that is similar to the 5.56mm (.223) M16 round. The Russians even put a small cavity in their bullets to increase the “Hypershock” tumble. Osama is often seen with an AK 74. Other than the color of the clip, the AK 74 and AK 47 look almost identical.
saiga on February 22, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Obama’s only “service” is as a street organizer for the Communist party.
DANEgerus on February 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Didn’t we reject a guy in the last Presidential election who had a tendency to make up stories about the military? At least the previous bozo served in the military he created fiction about.
michaelo on February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM
There is only one possible explanation to Obama’s error here. The captain who gave Obama this story is clearly a Neo-Con Plant.
Queasy on February 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Is Barry going to go to rural PA and ask to “get me a huntin license?”
benrand on February 22, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Obama carries an AK? Oh, wait, just reread that. Understandable mistake though…
Big Daddy Cool on February 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I’ve got two ARs, one with the 16″ barrel, skeleton stock, Red Dot, etc, and the other with a standard 22″ barrel. Lots of fun to shoot, the only jams I’ve encountered were due to defective magazines. Also, the ARs push dirty gas back into the receiver which adds to the sludge buildup. Actually, I think that so called “tumbling” action is partial fragmentation with the full jacket on impact. From what I’ve observed, soft nose ammo, which is against Geneva regs for military, creates a helluva exit hole. My only gripe is the rifles are almost too light, but then I don’t have to hump them and a lot of ammo over long distances, either.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I watched the debate last night, and there is no doubt that either one of those would be real trouble on a number of fronts. They want the “great society II” and think of the American public as more like Katrina Victims. As our population’s character standards continue to go down, so does the performance expectations and citizen responsibilties.
We are living in a Kosov sequil here in Texas, and before too long the concept of self reliance and personal resonsibility will be replaced with the same replete corruption as we see all over Latin America.
The Unites States no longer has the balls to deliver straight talk about reality anymore because we are becoming a country of spineless weenies. The current set of candidates bares that out. These fools are what the weenies want and probably will get. Imagine if John Wayne were alive today. What would he think?
saiga on February 22, 2008 at 11:05 AM
This from the same guy who said the surge wasn’t working.
Geronimo on February 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM
There is no doubt the chroming the barrel made a huge difference in the newer AR15, M16, M4. A buddy of mine took out a squirter at 900 yards with his M16. He says his was relyable, but the round was pretty light for concrete block buildings. He said the .308 would penatrate.
saiga on February 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Let me tell you, after about 15 miles through the woods, it starts to feel like it weighs 100 pounds!
TheBigOldDog on February 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Does anybody wonder why Obama doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel, doesn’t put his hand over his heart at the natinal anthem and his wife is not proud of America?
Sven on February 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Why did he vote against the appropriations bill for military spending?
bnelson44 on February 22, 2008 at 11:26 AM
You do know that the M4 have all but replace the sub-machinegun. The 5.56 is better at stopping a person then pistol calibers.
HK is good at marketing. They are damn good at it. The fact is that the HK416 is less accurate, have more felt recoil, and heavier then the standard M16 for marginally gain in reliability. HK416 is a decent rifle but you lose more then you gain and that is unacceptable. It’s not going anywhere in the US military.
Done my tour on AK Vs AR so I won’t put to much effort into it. All I have to said is that if having a choice between the AK and AR the best fighters in the world will pick the AR. Why do private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan use the AR instead of the AK?
Critical thinking skills is important.
jdun on February 22, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Don’t know about army units, but I spent many years in comabt line companies in the Marines. If you were a Captain you were commanding a Company or were the BN XO. I NEVR saw a captain commanding a single platoon, that would be like Bill Gates being demoted to a project mahanger. We had boot 2Lt’s and in some cases SSgt’s commanding platoons for christsakes.
Osamabama is the type of asshat that is so used to getting a free pass on talking trash about crap he knows nothing about he figures he can do it on any subject; the problem is the military is a small world and there are too many little things that you know nothing about unless you did the time.
Alden Pyle on February 22, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I’ve never heard anything like this from my two nephews, one who has been to Iraq four times (there now), the other who has been to Iraq once and Afghanistan once (going back to Afghanistan in July).
Barack Obama must be referring to a soldier who mentioned this to him one on one because I can’t imagine this being an experience of more than just a few soldiers here and there, and even if so most likely after an intense combat situation where they were outnumbered.
I think it’s stupid for a candidate to use this example as debating point no matter how true. Everyone knows about the delays in the HUMVEE uparmor situation. He could have used that instead.
olympian2008 on February 22, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Knight’s armament did make the SR-47, designed for Special Forces operators working deep in enemy turf, but it allegedly didn’t get beyond small prototype numbers. It was basically an M4 chambered for the Soviet 7.62 round. It accepted regular Ak-47 mags.
Iblis on February 22, 2008 at 11:50 AM
There is also something to be said about the sound of different rifles. An AK-47 sounds MUCH different than a M-16. One of the best ways to identify the position of an enemy for them would be to listen for a certain type of rifle fire. Using different weapons sometimes would definitely be a good idea.
But then again what is my service in a combat zone up against Barack’s extensive experience with all things military?
dvldog1142 on February 22, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Not really. I pretty much already know.
Blacklake on February 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Hand over heart during national anthem? I never have. I rarely see that in person at Rockies, Broncos and NASCAR events. I see people quietly standing at attention and /or singing along. Removing one’s cap is automatic and most times the public address announcer at an event will remind people.
olympian2008 on February 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Forced to use enemy weapons? LOL.
Excuse me Abdul, lend me your grenade launcher will ya?…uh… I dont think so…. I’d be burying the enemies weapons or like they do put them in a pile and destroy them.
johnnyU on February 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
A couple things on this. First, captains can and do act as platoon leaders. Army 1LTs are promoted to captain at roughly the 3 1/2 year mark of their career. So for an officer taking a specialty platoon (scouts, mortars, AT) they can be a platoon leader as a captain. In Afghanistan as a company commander, I had a captain platoon leader. Now, as far as a captain platoon leader of a SF unit – can’t happen. Officers cannot join the SF until they go to the Captain’s Career Course and follow on at the Q course. The captains that act as platoon leaders are pre-career course captains and are considered junior captains. SF will not consider a junior captain until he has attended the Captain’s Career Course. So there are not junior captains out there in SF units scrounging off the land with AK-47s because they cannot get a good M4. That is just total BS. And in my experience, it is unheard of to allow a regular Army unit to arm themselves with anything but their assigned weapon (M4, M16A2, M14, M249, M240B, M203). If I had seen any of my LT’s or anyone in my unit carrying an AK 47, my first question would have been my boot in his ass. Second I would ask where his assigned weapon was and why he wasn’t using it. I never saw an AK with optics or lasers that would allow for accurate night fighting or close quarters combat.
Could it happen that an SF team leader would allow some of his men to carry an AK for some reason – sure. But it certainly wouldn’t be because his unit couldn’t afford a quality M4.
This whole thing is nothing more than a politician getting information from an anti-war officer who has a beef.
King of the Britons on February 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM
OK, let’s quash some misinformation:
“Hypershock” is a misnomer. In regards to energy imparted from a firearm projectile the proper term would be “shock trauma”, not hypershock. And shock trauma is not what kills you, tissue and organ damage with associated bleeding from a bullet passing through your body does. If shock trauma was such a big deal, any cop shot while wearing a ballistic vest would die. That’s the whole purpose of “body armor”, to keep the bullet from entering your body to kill you. Shock trauma also can be made irrelevant by shot placement. If you don’t hit a major artery, the head or happen to hit the torso, shock trauma’s effect are marginalized. A arm, leg or any other non-vital, non-large tissue area doesn’t have enough tissue for a projectile to induce a large wound channel anyway canceling most of the effects of shock trauma. Now all of this isn’t meant to completely discount the physical effects of shock trauma, but we’re dealing with a small side issue. To put it another way, this is why an explosion doesn’t necessarily kill, shrapnel does.
As to bullet “tumble”. All bullets tumble when they impact a target, especially at long distances. If you are hit by a high power rifle bullet (usually inside 300 meters) then tumble is probably not much of a factor, unless the bullet begins bouncing off of bones, or is deflected by something just prior to entering the body. This is another myth propagated by popular culture. The 5.56 bullet was not designed to “tumble”. No bullet is. That’s why we have rifling in a barrel, so the bullet spins, flying true to the target. And it is a side issue for this fact as well – whether you get hit by a 5.56 bullet which “tumbles” after it enters your body and hits your heart, or you get hit by a .308 which doesn’t tumble but hits your heart directly, does it really matter what the bullet did AFTER it entered your body? Of course not. Stop perpetuating a myth.
As to the effectiveness of US small arms. The standard weapon, meaning the basic combat rifle for the Army, Marines and most of the AF is the M4. Its a carbine length rifle which fires the M855 round as it’s standard round and uses the “M16″ action. It will function will minimal care in all types of environments. It will fire and function when dirty, wet, muddy, not-lubed, you name it. I’ve done it. As to the ammo – it’s a 65 grain projectile containing a steel “penetrator”. Basically we’re dealing with a lead core bullet with a copper jacket. The internal lead core is covered by a thin steel “jacket”. This does not make the ammo “armor piercing” per se, but given the right angle, velocity, etc, it will penetrate inch thick “bullet proof glass” and CAN penetrate light armor, probably no thicker than 1/4 inch, again given the right alignment of the planets. It can defeat certain types of personal “body armor”. It will go through walls and will go through concrete blocks as well – not all the time, but it CAN. You can fire other 5.56mm ammo from the M$, but accuracy is diminshed after a certain range given the bullet weight and velocity since the M4 is specifically designed to fire the 65 grain 855 (rifle twist, etc.)
Is the M4 or AK a better weapon? It depends on what your definition of “better” is (heh). The M4 gets a bad rap from the ammo having a tendency to OVER PENETRATE soft targets (people), but this doesn’t happen as often as is rumored. The Kalashnikov action is superb and as another commenter said a lot of SF use them if they are traveling in the right areas and they do this for different reasons not all of which are related to it’s effectiveness. As to the continued rumors of “M16″ issues – jamming, not working unless kept immaculately clean, these are almost always false. The Vietnam issues with the rifle were fixed over 30 years ago. I hate to get harsh here, but stop using Vietnam analogies about the current weapon system; you’re just perpetuating a myth.
My business is military firearms, maintenance, training and use and I know how the deployment system works. Obama is trying to make the argument that our Army guys were deployed without the proper weapons – he is lying. Almost all servicemen going into the AOR are armed not only with a rifle, but depending on their specific missions, will also carry a sidearm or other weapons (grenade launchers, shotguns, machine guns, other weapons). Obama is lying and perpetuating the lie about our guys not having what they need.
To put it another way – he is full of shit!
I know everyone has difference heres, but I would feel completely confident to carry an M4 or any other American service firearm into combat – I have for 21 years now.
Would I pass up the offer to carry an M14? Not if one were offered, but it would depend on the mission parameters as well. I can carry many more times the ammo in 5.56 than .308 and being able to carry on a fight is what matters. If I have to put another bullet in someone to keep him down, so be it. I’ll get back to him after dispatching a couple of his buddies in the interim.
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Must have been seared into the Captain’s memory…
Commander-in-Chief?
It pains me to think so…
jcrue on February 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The closest to this I heard about involved some Abrams crewmembers appropriating AK’s during the initial invasion of Baghdad because they didn’t have personal M-16/4’s issued to them, but liked having the option of sticking something out the top hatch and spraying bullets for deterrent effect (which is something the AK is actually good at). I don’t know if it’s true at all or if so how often it was done, but I remember there being some (peculiar to me) controversy about it at the time (as I thought the idea made perfect sense). But that was at least 4 years ago.
If we’re finding viable weapons and ammo in Taliban/AQ storage, I can’t think of any principled reason to not distribute it, if nothing else, to the Afghans. My amateur conjecture would be, though, that the process of sorting the good stuff from the old and unreliable would usually not be worth the effort.
Whatever the case, I’m sure we’re all quite confident that what Obama said was largely if not entirely false.
Blacklake on February 22, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Au contraire, mon frere. Let us truly hope that it does…
Jaibones on February 22, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Does the reduction in barrel length for the M-4 create enough of a loss in bullet velocity to be a detriment in practical terms? I’m not talking about long range effectiveness, but rather in kinetic energy dump at closer ranges like the street fighting in Iraq?
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 12:39 PM
His statements are a crock of crap, people. As others have said enemy weapons are not left lying around and often they work better than issue.
B hussein as President is a frightening idea. But he is showing his ignorance and people will see it.
dogsoldier on February 22, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee also thinks the story is B.S.
DubiousD on February 22, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Technically it’s a 5.56mm NATO. I believe it has more power than a regular .223. (LINK)
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM
In Vietnam, it was common practice to pick up and use any weapons and ammo we found in order to preserve our own, no matter how much we had of our own …
gstrickler on February 22, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I considered the possibility of a specialty platoon, maybe even one at the Regiment/Brigade level. Its possible that a platoon could get split up if a BCT was going for a light/heavy mix. If that was the case, then this ‘captain’ should stop sniveling about getting split up between task forces.
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 22, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I don’t know, man. The U.S. electorate is pretty ignorant. I think that the “Bush hasn’t equipped our troops properly” meme has penetrated pretty deep into the American consciousness, especially after all that talk about body armor a few years ago. If Obama keeps hitting the the theme of U.S. troops being sent into war underequipped and unprepared, I think that’s a winner for him. Most folks don’t pay attention to details.
Enrique on February 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Quote Flopping Aces: “It’s Congress that gives the money to the Military Senator Obama…not the Commander in Chief.”
And didn’t Obama vote against war funding, or am I misremembering?
DubiousD on February 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM
i really can’t add much to what has already been said. A SF unit might have AK’s the better to blend in to the environment. CPT’s command company’s, one level higher then platoons. Soldiers always gripe about their weapons and it is hard to argue with them after they dump 15 rounds into some drugged up jihadists who just keeps coming. Police officers have the same complaints in dealing with some of the druggies they encounter.
Trying to paint an image of American military forces scrounging around the countryside out of necessity rather then for a tactical purpose is pure absurdity.
Neither one of the current Democrats could in all honesty hold a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and not be met with pure skepticism. I don’t even know how they could look them in the eye.
BUT remember the audience he was directing this to and they will lap it up as the gospel spoken by Obama.
Too few people with any real contact with the military is the major cause of this. Talk about a group of people who are living in the shadows, and you are talking about our service men and women.
Just A Grunt on February 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM
What’s that sound I hear, off in the distance?
Terrorists, Mullahs, Russians, Chinese ….. all laughing their heads off listening to the fool, Obama.
fogw on February 22, 2008 at 1:14 PM
In short, Sen. “Hope and Change” Obama doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. This isn’t news to those of us who pay attention to his rhetoric. Question is, will all those voters swooning over him at how “likable” he is give a damn?
Yakko77 on February 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Hmm. I posted a version of this at DailyKos…. they are claiming Obama is completely accurate.
Here’s their source: http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/posts/1203696668.shtml
Vanceone on February 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Gah, here’s the link to my DK diary. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/124747/143#c110
Vanceone on February 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM
So many incorrect firerarms myths posted in this thread, but I will restrtain myself, and correct just this one:
The “orange” magazine you referred to is a primitive plastic introduced with the 7.62X39 AKM. The same plastic was carried over when production switched to the 5.45X39 AK-74. New production mags use a modern black colored polymer. So, the orange mags can be either 7.62 or 5.45 (not interchangable). BTW as noted AK mags, plastic or steel, weigh A TON, loaded or not. Imagine carrying 14 of them into combat…
Osama is usually seen with a 7.62X39 AKM, but one that has the skeletonized side folding stock of a AK-74 fitted. Or, a 5.45X39 AKS-74U “Krinkov”.
pseudonominus on February 22, 2008 at 1:43 PM
a capella,
As to velocity and barrel length…
The M4 barrel is 16 inches long, shortened from the 20 inch length of the M16A2 (and other comparable models.)
For practical purposes, the loss in velocity for this is irrelevant at combat ranges such as you suggest in street fighting.
Again, you are focusing on “kinetic energy dump”. Shock trauma is irrelevant in practical terms. Proper shot placement is what you are looking for.
Again, in practical terms your just as dead getting hit from a .17HMR or a 5.56mm or a .50 cal if I can shoot you in the heart or in the vitals with any of the three rounds…
The longer barrel allows for increased velocity on the same weight bullet, but in practical terms this only helps when “trying to reach out and touch someone.” The longest shot I personally have ever hit with a 5.56mm bullet was just over 850 yards, (M16A2) and that was on a range under pretty much ideal conditions. I have seen AF SF guys make further shots with an M4, but this has nothing to do with the velocity or the weapons, but the skill of the shooter.
In a combat situation if you are looking to “reach out”, use another weapon.
In close quarters, the M4 is more than enough weapon.
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM
As it states..
.223 Remington (is just that made to Remington specifications)
5.56×45mm NATO (is just that made to NATO specifications)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
It’s Very similar the NATO round, it has a thicker cartridge because of the higher chamber pressure, the projectile differs slightly as well.(Not much)
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM
correction, M4 barrel is 14.5″ long
pseudonominus on February 22, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Oh. And yes, I know a .50 cal will leave a bigger hole in you than a 5.56.
I was simply using it as an example.
:)
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Of course they do…Just like that lonely gal at the end of the bar at 3:00am was a first class beauty.
scatbug on February 22, 2008 at 1:51 PM
I usually have a lot to say on these kinds of threads, but let me just say, thank you catmman!
Nothing can stop the urban legend juggernaut, but I appreciate the effort! :)
Merovign on February 22, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Well, the military does have access to different types of projectiles that civilians do not have.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I’m starting to look forward to Maverick talking military with BO. Although the outcome of such a conversation would not change anyone on the left’s mind.
swami on February 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Thanks Pseudo…
I was thinking of my Bushmaster barrel…
Though with compensator and bushings it the overall length is right about 16 inches…
:)
but the actual barrel itself is 14.5in.
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Well there it is. Obama’s a fucking liar.
infidel4life on February 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM
MP5 is shorter for CQB, in certain situations I could see it being utilized.
Also, it has less recoil and can be held on target more effectively.
Special Ops should have the best weapons for the job.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Urban jungle juggernaut indeed!
The M4 was never meant to be a replacement for the “sub-machinegun”. Which would more accurately be described as a “machine-pistol”.
The MP5 is a good weapon for what it is intended for, but then again I always had an affinity for the UZI, but there is no comparison to the M4, or any other combat RIFLE.
A MP5 fires the 9mm PISTOL caliber. The M4 fires the 5.56mm RIFLE caliber.
Two different weapons, designed for different missions…
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 2:22 PM
All you Greenie Beannie types or SF types talking all this weapons spec lingo are starting to scare me. Nobody should know more about weapons then they do women. But then I am…
Just A Grunt on February 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
LOL…
No..
Improvise, Adapt and Overcome.
Marines know that, Obama does not.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I’m not disagreeing with your point, but would point out that projected, it argues against the concept that a .45 at 800 ft/sec is any more effective than a .22 at the same speed. I’m making the assumption that all shots are not placed precisely in a vital area in many cases. There is an energy relationship between bullet mass X Vsquared. My point is that practical use does not entirely discount a larger bullet mass as conferring some advantage. Otherwise, one could hunt Cape buffalo with a .22 with the caveat you’ll be O.K. with perfect shot placement. The advantage that is conferred is what, if shock, knockdown, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t play some part? I have never bought into the vascular shock theory, but there is some physiological reason large bullet mass at lower velocity is effective, other than just hitting a bone.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Toxic bullets.
There, I said it. That is the answer.
pseudonominus on February 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM
You forgot to take into account that pesky Geneva Conventions thing.
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM
UPDATE: The Pentagon made a statement today, via Reuters:
The Pentagon on Friday cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama during a debate with rival Hillary Clinton.
“I find that account pretty hard to imagine,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.
“Despite the stress that we readily acknowledge on the force, one of the things that we do is make sure that all of our units and service members that are going into harm’s way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful,” he said.
Whitman’s remarks were unusual as the Pentagon often declines to talk about comments from political campaigns.
Obama said the captain was the head of a rifle platoon, which should have had 39 members — but 15 were sent to Iraq so the unit deployed to Afghanistan had 24 soldiers.
Several Army officers said a platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant — two ranks below a captain — but the size of a platoon would indeed be around 40 soldiers.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Redbird on February 22, 2008 at 2:48 PM
You can’t see it well on the video above, but HERE you can see the CNN and Univison anchors/moderators nodding in agreement with what Obama said.
I just hope, please God, that during the debates if Obama is the Dem nominee McCain will have the sense to go after Obama on stuff like this. Obama said keeping America safe is job #1 so his competency as Commander in Chief is critical.
Amy Proctor on February 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
You are being challenged here.
AprilOrit on February 22, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Actually I read somewhere a hunter did take out an elephant with two shots from a .22, because of bullet placement. Not saying it happened, but there it is…
I never said shock trauma played no effect, what I said was it is irrelevant in practical terms.
We can debate all day about velocity and bullet size and kinetic energy. In the real world, none of that matters when it matters – what matters is where you hit your adversary.
As you say, not all shots are in a vital area. If you don’t hit a vital area, it doesn’t matter how big the bullet is or it’s velocity in practical terms.
We are talking about practicality here right?
Practically speaking a bigger bullet COULD impart an advantage, but it is not necessarily so. My wife can only accurately and consistantly shoot a .38, but she’s a hell of a shot with it. Would she be better off with a .45? No since she wouldn’t be able to effectively engage a target with it – it’s too big for her to hold properly and she doesn’t like shooting large caliber weapons because of her small hands – so practically speaking she’s better off being able to hit an adversary with a smaller bullet in a smaller caliber in the best spot possible.
Oh BTW, Obama sucks!
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Why, pray tell, did you vote against funding the troops if you are so concerned about them, Mr O?
jgapinoy on February 22, 2008 at 3:17 PM
The NATO cartridge is also little longer in the neck. Just enough so that the NATO round will not work properly in a civilian .223 chamber, but not enough so that in a pinch a civlian round could still work in a NATO chambered weapon.
Lawrence on February 22, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Of which Barack Obama is most decidedly one. His frittering and “nuanced” positions on Iraq funding have been the constant bane of our armed forces operating at peak efficiency.
spmat on February 22, 2008 at 3:32 PM
The Moro tribesmen in the Philipines circa 1904-1911 would hop-up on drugs then attack, and hitting them with a .38 round wouldn’t always slow them down enough to stop their assaults. So the .45 ACP was re-issued to military forces specifically because of the extra stopping power (shock trauma) of the round.
This is also the reason that the newer .40 cal handguns and .357Mags have not lost popularity in the face of the newer 9mm’s and .38’s.
For accuracy at distance, go with a 9mm. But for stopping power at short range in self defense one .45 round will do what it might take two or three 9mm rounds to do.
Lawrence on February 22, 2008 at 3:40 PM
The Pentagon’s response:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2258358120080222?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
MrSteve on February 22, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Thanks for the link to that ABC ‘debunking’ of our debunking.
I can see where several of those things the supposed Captain supposedly said might have actually happened temporarily WAY BACK IN in 2003. But even if true then, they would have been fixed by now, and Obama’s use of them in this debate is just as spurious as if he made it up completely.
… But I have NEVER NEVER NEVER heard of a regular ‘leg’ rifle platoon being broken up prior to deployment……. and only incredibly rarely if the unit sustained massive casualties during deployment and there were no available replacements. Then they could be broken up completely and absorbed into other units.
Of course it HAS been 20 years+ since I have been directly involved in any of this stuff, and 28 years since I have actually been in uniform; So it is possible things have changed.
But I’m still calling BS on the story.
LegendHasIt on February 22, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Not if you don’t hit something vital with that one .45 round.
One round in 9mm or .22 or from a 20mm chain gun will work if you hit the fricking target in a place which will kill it.
1M rounds from anything won’t kill a fricking thing if you don’t first hit the fricking target.
A fricking nuke won’t kill a fricking thing with all of it’s associated “energy”, if it doesn’t fricking hit something worth destroying first.
If fricking kinetic energy were the only thing to worry about with bullet and wound ballistics we would only have one size firearm – EXTRA BIG!
Sorry.
Exit question: For those of you who ever bought a gun for anthing practical, did the salesman at Store X EVER bring up that “indeed, this weapon imparts X amount of kinetic energy when it propels Y mass at target Z using A amount of B powder and C bullets, but you must first make sure you have D brand of casing so LMNOP blah, blah, blah…?!!!!”
Sorry again…
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 4:12 PM
I guess if we switch from a military to civilian mode, the largest caliber one can shoot accurately would be advisable. I’m very accurate with a .22 Ruger target pistol with a 6 inch bull barrel, but don’t generally have it handy.LOL. Since we would be talking strictly about self defense, I suspect a local DA might have a bit of a problem with a self defense plea on a long range incident, although I don’t know exactly how far is too far. Anything giving one an opportunity to escape rather than engage, I guess. At any rate, I fear I’m hijacking this thread, so will also disengage here. Thanks to all for the input.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Looks like the Captain served as a Liutenant in Afghanistan before becoming a Captain, naturally. Nice passion, but it looks as though Obama said nothing wrong. The Captain was interviewed, and confirms Obama’s statement. Surely, you’re not calling him a liar.
sandman on February 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Nope. But, I don’t ask salesmen questions like that. Mostly, just how much does it cost. I do reload quite a bit, and am involved wih the health sciences. The reason I asked the original question about barrel length was because when I bought my AR-15 with the 16 inch barrel, My gunsmith told me you would lose about 100-200 ft/sec for every inch of barrel lost. A 22 incher yields about 3000 ft/sec, losing 6 inches costs at least 600 ft/sec, so you are left with about 2400 ft/sec. Doesn’t mean it isn’t still lethal. While your point about vital hits is well taken, high velocity is part of the killing equation with a low mass slug or they could just use subsonic rounds. I think we are arguing the extremes on both sides of the question here. I understand your point about accuracy, but the ballistic information is also germane.
a capella on February 22, 2008 at 4:31 PM
When the Captain, Himself, actually appears in public to give his story, I’ll be willing to accept it it as probably true.
So far we only have second hand reports: How do we know that Tapper actually talked to an actual Captain who actually served under those conditions?
Did the reporter call him on the telephone; Or did the supposed Captain contact him? Did the reporter journey to Ft. Durm and interview the Captain in person?
Without further information we have no idea if Tapper is ’shading the truth’ for reasons of his own, or if he was duped by a Obama operative.
Even if this supposed Captain’s tale is completely true, Obama did say something wrong by relating a tale set in 2003 as being a current situation.
LegendHasIt on February 22, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Legend,
Things should become clearer, and questions answered, as the day passes. As far as the 2003 story; that wouldn’t make him a liar, as some have called him. I would like to hear from the Pentagon as to whether this deficiency has been corrected. Isn’t that what matters?
sandman on February 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM
One more time: are we all going to feel happy happy joy joy if this guy is in the White House because McCain made us grumpy?
Professor Blather on February 22, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Obama clearly exaggerated his claims to try to make a larger point, which was still wrong.
Of course this is politics and there almost always is no context from same politicians…
a capella: the velocity loss from barrel length is about right generally speaking. Your right, we’re arguing both sides of the equation here.
My larger point was that there seems to be(is) a fair amount of misinformation out there when it comes to firearms and their performance.
Anti-gunners have tried to make the case using velocity to further their aims, and an unknowing public falls for it since their own education from firearms comes from what they see in the movies or TV, or hear an anti-gunner spout.
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 5:07 PM
You have it backwards- high velocity is needed for the fragmentation and tumbling effects, not lower velocity as would be the case at longer ranges. Once a 5.56 round drops to around 2500 fps, it’s much less likely to tumble and fragment and is more likely to go through clean.
Hollowpoint on February 22, 2008 at 6:02 PM
A bullet can tumble at low velocity and high velocity.
A bullet can fragment at low velocity and high velocity.
Bullets (unless specifically designed to do so) are also not made to fragment. If one is pushed too fast it CAN fragment, but unless it impacts something, it SHOULDN’T fragment.
Military bullets specifically are not designed to fragment, nor are they designed to “mushroom” (as in a hollowpoint bullet).
Again, we’re dealing with basics here. The factors which affect velocity, “tumble”, “shock trauma”, fragmentation etc. are myriad.
Weather. Environment. Bullet construction. Manufacture(r). Powder. Primer. Case. Weapon – cleanliness, barrel temperature. Operator proficiency. Inspection. You name it.
catmman on February 22, 2008 at 7:52 PM
I thought we were taking their weapons and blowing them up. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that on tv, and stuff.
franklinstein on February 22, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Obama’s lack of understanding of the military is breathtaking. He’s a dangerous Marxist.
Mojave Mark on February 22, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Y’all couldn’t tell he was making it up as he answered the question? Please.
It could depend on what the definiton of “tallybahn weapons” IS.
SouthernGent on February 22, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Why would you want to use a freaking sub-machinegun when an M4 that chamber in 5.56 is a much better weapon at stopping a person and penetrating soft body armor then a pistol caliber? They all went with the M4. It has by default replaced almost all sub-machineguns in the military and police. The sub-machineguns is dead. Period. It is a fact. The only people that doesn’t understand this are game kiddies and morons.
The 5.56 doesn’t tumble. The 5.45×39 does. The 5.56 will fragment at above a certain speed.
I believe over 99% of all AR for civilian use are design to chamber 5.56. If it can chamber 5.56 it will chamber .223 rem but not the other way around (you can but not a good idea).
M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel not 16. That is a fact.
Only SpecOps are allow to use enemy type weapons like the AK. I do not know where you got the idea that tank crews were issued AK-47. If you use some critical thinking skills the 7.62×39 is not a standard Nato round hence the chance of them getting ammo for the assault rifle is almost zero. With that said there are many Allied countries that are in Iraq and Afghanistan that use AKs.
Rifle and pistol calibers are different. A 5.56 will not stop inside the human body. It will go through the body. Even pistol in FMJ will do it. Hollow point pistol caliber are design to “open/expand” when entering the body. This slow the bullet down and make a bigger hole. Over penetrating is limited when using hollow point ammo in pistol caliber. Rifle hollow point doesn’t expand. The cavity is too small. What it does it increase the accuracy of the bullet in flight. Soft point (lead tip point) will allow rifle caliber to expand.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/
jdun on February 23, 2008 at 12:10 AM
IF this is true – I should think that it would be best described as “grabbing what’s handy” in the midst of a firefight. Not quite the same thing, Mr. Obama – less of an act of despair, more of an act of economy and common sense.
uncivilized on February 23, 2008 at 7:19 AM
They is?
Akzed on February 23, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Aw frick!
Akzed on February 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Barak: Messiah and Military Genius……NOT on both counts
Bubba Redneck on February 25, 2008 at 2:11 AM
I guess Obama thinks we live in a fish bowl and can’t remember he and fellow dems would be to blame for the “shortage” of weapons/ammo considering they frittered around with the funding for the troops and their equipment.
I guess he really does think we are sheep and he is the great Shepard…
TFM
ThinkingForMyself on February 25, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »