Anyone carry a gun in their taco?

Based on 5 minutes of perusing your previous posts I've found that both of you are guilty of leaking very private information that potentially could be used against you. Hell, people can extract gps coordinates from the photos you upload. If you guys are that paranoid, don't have an internet connection.

How do you carry in your truck then if you're not LEO? Cali isn't known to hand out CCW's very willingly.

 

Of course I do, but your earlier hyperbole on the caliber size warrants my trolling.

I doubt that.

I wouldn't want to get hit with one, but I can assure you there are much more damaging rounds out there, both in military and civilian inventories.

It doesn't have to be a "one rifle army." I can see soldiers being trained in more than one weapon, and advocated as such back in the day. There needs to be a modern replacement for the M-14 along the lines of the G-3, which itself is an old weapon. I'm glad to see that some shotguns have been introduced, though I am not sure if that stuck around.

There could have been even more corpses. Eh? As for the Soviet Union, they following one of our mistakes is just another example of their ineptitude.

I see you bought into "tie up their medical infrastructure" excuse. I don't need to research it, but I can tell you this, I don't remember Abdul Haq ever telling me he really feared any AK as opposed to a bolt action Mauser.

 

I didnt say anything about their medical infrastructure. When you are an illiterate, ill educated, holy warrior in a 5 or 6 man team and your buddy gets his lower abdomen blown out of his side, and you know that the nearest medical treatment is a 3 day donkey ride away in Pakistan, it reduces your effectiveness as an operating entity by some measure.

Just for factual display:

 

Yes, I am aware of the theory. Let's see, this theory originally came out during Vietnam. Their medical system wasn't burdened at all. They had no medical system to burden! You are simply parroting theory that you have been told, not fact. Charlie would just leave his guys there to die. What you think they had Dust Off?

Demoralize their will to fight? Have you studied the Vietnam War and did you not notice what the outcome was?

 

What can I say? Kein scheisse Sherlock. Same happens if he's dead. If he's wounded nobody is going to give him a 3-day donkey ride anyways. He's a DIP.

 

Im sorry. Your avatar info says 55 years old, correct? That would make you about 13 or 14 years old during the last real phases of American involvement in ground combat in VN. So you dont know dick about VC \ NVA field medical capabilities? Correct?

Now Im 31, and obviously was never there either. But a gentleman whom I work with closely did two tours in VN as a Recon Marine and knows first hand exactly what small unit combat was like in VN. I wager he would disagree with you.

Also, please explain these:





What Im getting at is they did have an effective logistic/medical system in place for what they had to work with.

 

No I'm simply commenting on what I know from experience. Look up the original 5.56 round the m193 ball. Nato banned it because it created wounds so horrific but didnt kill.

Fyi I have been deployed twice to combat feild hospitals. I am a surigical tech and I see what the 5.56 does almost daily. Currently deployed now. Problem is the insugents dont have a medical system so we burdan ourselves.

 

Wrong. The insugents and taliban are actually very effective about policing their dead and wounded. Quality of care is next to non existant by our standards. The afghan medical system has become very good and compairable to what we had in the 60's, infrastructure wise. The medical care itself for trauma is very good considering that afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world.

 

The pictures are comical. They are staged photos that depict a history they would like to portray. Did you just get them off the web from some museum in Hanoi? The VC and the RVN were simply left there to die on the field. They didn't even retrieve the bodies.

My age hasn't been hidden here. You know someone who was in Vietnam? Am I supposed to be impressed by that? So by your logic you don't know dick about it either right? Your getting info second hand from an old guy, or probably just from the internet. Besides, for your one Recon Marine, I got ten Rangers that will tell the story different All my service was under Vietnam veterans. I served in an Army that was full of nothing but Vietnam vets. On the timeline closer to the events of that war, and not what has been sanitized over the passage of decades and delivered to you as such.

Your point regarding small caliber vs. large caliber in handguns is?

Your point regarding 5.56 carbines vs. 7.62 battle rifles is?

 

So you're a peace time vet? so all you know is what you have been told?

 

Wow, this thread went to shit

 

POINT 1: Rimfire is insufficient for a real world round. Both in reliability, penetration, and energy transfer. However, if nothing else is available a rimfire weapon is infinitely better than no weapon.

POINT 2: Pistols in general are insufficient for immediate incapacitation of a determined and motivated target. Whether its 9mm, .40, . 45, etc. a pistol round is not a reliable show stopper, save a direct CNS shot. A long gun is always preferable for immediate incapacitation.

POINT 1: The modern family of M16 is a superior rifle given all the factors than the previous generation of 7.62 rifle. The M14 is a fine rifle, but its time has passed as a general issue weapon for the fire team/rifle squad. Given the loads that todays 0311/11B carries and the conditions he operates in, an M4/M16 is much better suited to his use than an M14.

POINT 2: Only idiots or those ignorant of real world performance denigrate the effectiveness of .223. You helped prove this point the best.

Any further questions?

 

I am familiar with that writing and it is a yarn about the NATO ban. There are much more lethal rounds than the 5.56 and much more damaging/maiming.

Have you seen it's damage compared to other rounds like 7.62? If not, what would be your basis of comparison for other battle rounds? I will say this again, just so you fully understand my position. The 5.56 was developed as a "humanitarian" round so that it would maim and not kill. That's what the peaceniks here in the US wanted at the time. This is how it was originally sold. Back when the military wasn't so politically correct like it is today, the military did not want that round and told the peaceniks "No!" To appease the military, the legend was made up that it would actually help the military win, with the logic that three enemy soldiers would figuratively be taken out of the battle. The wounded one on a stretcher, and two to carry him out. The "demoralize the enemy" argument was also thrown in at the time. This yarn was still being told post-Vietnam when I was in the Army was found to be laughable by all. Of course we all know in the end it didn't demoralize the VC or NVA and it didn't matter if their non-existent medical system got tied up or not.

Isn't that what I just said? That they don't have a medical system.

I thought you just told me the insurgents don't have a medical system? Which one is it? They either suck or they don't.

 

Can you guys just duel and get it over with?

 

He means compared to us, they dont have modern medical treatment so we 'win hearts and minds' by scooping Hadjis brains back into his fresh perforated face and MEDEVACing him.

 

Generally agreed. However, for up close personal encounters, it may suffice. It still kills more than any other caliber in US murders.

True, then put away your Glock. For civilian personal protection, i.e, carjacking, robbery, etc. a pistol will do fine. Lots of stats here in TX where CHL has stopped a perpetrator.

M-16 is an inferior weapon. It is still prone to jams. However, it may suffice in the M4 variant as a carbine. A new generation battle rifle needs to be developed to replace the M-14. Soldiers should not be married to just one type of rifle.

Only assholes carry on in a manner of argument big on hyperbole and low on logic, that is until they are finally and equally trolled on. You helped prove this point the best, and I am sure you have been counseled on this in the past.

 

"Hearts & Minds" is a failure. Punitive expedition and be done with it. Not interested in helping anymore scum around the planet. Yeah, pretty soon we will be helping in Syria too. That'll be really fucking smart.

 

1. Then you know that the "humanitarian" works both ways. How their alive still thats good but damn are the fucked for life and their medical system is over worked. Also it serves the purpose to demoralize and breaks moral. Thus reducing the will to fight.

2. I've seen and have operated on people from 9mm to .50 cal injuries. Simple antipersonel mines left over from the russians to 500 lbs hme suicide vehicle born attacks. From small victem operated ieds to very large ones. From rpg's to hellfire missle strikes. I've seen and have done a lot in the course of saving lives. Good guys and bad.

3. Insugents take advantages of the afghan medical system and ours. We have the ethical duty to provide care.

4. The afghan medical system is very good considering its afganistan. For trauma related purposes they probably are better than most other small countries because they are very experienced. We also mentor the medical community and provide training.

5. For someone that has never actually seen it or experinced it you sure act like you were there.

 

Where are you getting your information? You know about when I went in, you don't when I got out. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand about the rounds. Try again.

 

I know this is in the 1st Gen forum but here's a nice setup in a 2nd Gen: http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/2nd-gen-tacomas/241393-console-holster-mount.html