The single guiding principle to armed conflict.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supressors are illegal where I live
Where do you live? Because most states allow them.


You do realize that his tactics were written ~2004. Today .308, and other 'magnum' calibers are more common than they were.
Today is also when we are having this arguement. And he is here with us.

7.62x54mmR lover here
and here!

also, to expvideo

Shooting people normally is felonious. Shooting invading soldiers is patriotic.
My point was that we were talking about combat, where you aren't going to be arrested for misdemeanor charges in the middle of a firefight. Talking about the legalities of using a suppressor is stupid, since shooting people is also illegal under everyday circumstances, no matter how russian they are. But we aren't talking about everyday circumstances, are we?
 
BTW Akodo, if you read up on his site, he DOES NOT SUGGEST his tactics are suitable for fighting the USMC. He says "Intended for use by 3rd world nations/against third world nations"

If that is the case, then the below statement is not properly worded


Question: Is there a single guiding principle to armed conflict? What one aspect of combat is essential to victory and, if control of it is lost, ensures defeat in spite of all other advantages?

It is not a single guiding principle to armed conflict if you say "well, not THAT kind of armed conflict"
 
Shaka writes

If you park your bike in the living room of a private house, fire out the window when a target presents itself (being careful to fire over an obstacle like a canal) and then run like a scalded cat, you have a good chance of surviving.

This is absolutely true.

It also demonstrates that Courage, Resourcefullness, Suprise, Cover/Concealment, and Tactics are the key to successful engagement.

If one stays in that house for more than a few minutes, however, they will blow it up.

Again, your own scenario shows that distance is NOT the key, but quickly getting the hell out of dodge before you can be located and retaliated against is. So again, tactics, maneuver, suprise, all playing in.

Don't take this as me saying distance is not important. The military has fully auto weapons, most armed citizens are going to be armed with much slower firing weapons, so they have a disadvantage. Definately, whenever possible, take advantage of the fact that the 30-06 with a scope is going to be able to outrange a intermediate caliber...AND penetrate light armor/thin barriers. However, it is not THE key, it is one of many.


And even then, 'defeating' the enemy may not be possible. Slowing the enemy down so other military assets can engage is a realistic goal, and so is 'making it costly enough the army decides to go elsewhere' is another good goal.

Normally, porcupines don't defeat many adversaries. Fequently the porcupine is able to convince his adversary that he isn't worth the trouble.
 
Last edited:
"Even a .270 at 500 yards drops around 40 inches shooting a 150 grain bullet."
- me, earlier.

Okay, I was off a little, Federal says -44.1".

Their cheap SP ammo is more like 62".

Re: Federal 270 Win. Nosler® Partition®

LongTrajectoryGraph.aspx


P270E 270 Win. 0.7 1.7 -7.6 -22.0 -44.1 [<=500 yards]

www.federalpremium.com/products/details/rifle.aspx?id=236


I thought the single guiding principle was to bring lots and lots of armed friends. And lots of ammo. And air support.

John
 
What the heck, some poor man's .270, Federal 150 grain SP. Not exactly a laser either, although I suppose I've been talking to too many 1000-yard shooters.

270B 270 Win. 0.9 2.1 -9.4 -29.2 -62.6 [<= 500 yards]

LongTrajectoryGraph.aspx
 
Not to agree with pseudo-gunkid or anything, but it has been my experience that a single shot from a .22 does not draw any attention. I've occasionally sniped nutria and problem raccoons and no ones even noticed.

I bet none gunnies just assume its a car backfiring. The swat team doesn't show up or anything=P.

Would any of you call the cops if you heard a single loud crack?
 
shaka said:
I didn't say that I was going to do it....
Of course not. You suggested that someone else should do it to prove your point. That is a preposterous, indeed dumb, thing to suggest that someone else do (at least if you did it, you'd be assuming the responsibility -- although it would be a very dumb thing for you, or anyone else, to actually do).
 
I fired a number of different infantry weapons and I was mistakenly thinking of the M203 sights when I said that they could only be dialed in for targets out to 400 yards.
How you would confuse a SAW with a grenade launcher is beyond me, and further calls into question your expertise. For the record, even an RPK has sights regulated to 800m, and is effective well beyond the ranges you claim. But of course, something tells me you have never played with one.
However, I do know for a fact that the target that I was shooting at with the M249, a halftrack, was 380 yards away. I found that, if I held the fore-end of the weapon as firmly as I could, aimed at the base of the target, and squeezed off a burst of 15 to 20 rounds, I could hit it three or four times. Ding! Ding! Ding!
Further demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. Any machinegunner with two days worth of training will tell you that bursts should be limited to 6-8 rounds. Learn about machinegunnery before you bloviate about the limitations of the platform.
In combat, especially in cold weather, I know for a fact that I would be better off shooting at a dirt bank with a .22 and looking at the dust than trying to see the mirage.
This is the best way you can think of to read the wind? I find it even more laughable that a "sniper" would risk giving away his position in such a way.

What training do you claim to have, anyway? Clearly you are not a trained sniper.
 
You do realize that his tactics were written ~2004. Today .308, and other 'magnum' calibers are more common than they were.
No - 308 has been around since the mid 1950s and is no more prevelant today than it was four years ago. And it's certainly not a magnum round; it's designed to be a shortened 30-06 and to provide ballistics comparable to the thitty-ought.

What training do you claim to have, anyway? Clearly you are not a trained sniper.
We clearly are getting slow in our collective old age - it took eighty five responses before someone was willing to write what everyone else was thinking.

Y'all are arguing nits with someone with little to no formal training, clearly untested fieldcraft, and a relatively poor understanding of civilian or military weapons.

Why?
 
Last edited:
Albatross writes:

It has been my experience that a single shot from a .22 does not draw any attention. I've occasionally sniped nutria and problem raccoons and no ones even noticed.

I bet none gunnies just assume its a car backfiring. The swat team doesn't show up or anything=P.

Would any of you call the cops if you heard a single loud crack?

Fiddletown writes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaka
I didn't say that I was going to do it....

Of course not. You suggested that someone else should do it to prove your point. That is a preposterous, indeed dumb, thing to suggest that someone else do (at least if you did it, you'd be assuming the responsibility -- although it would be a very dumb thing for you, or anyone else, to actually do).

I reply:

Expvideo asked the question and I told him how to find the answer for himself. I don't have to conduct this experiment myself because I already know what is going to happen: Exactly nothing.

Humans assess risk based solely on their sense of vision, just as dogs assess risk based solely on their sense of smell. It is impossible to scare people with a loud noise for the same reason that it is impossible to scare dogs with a Halloween mask. They just don't get it.

People's #1 priority is to not embarrass themselves. And embarrassing oneself definately includes running from a loud noise and then looking around to discover that they are the only one running. That would be mortifying! So nobody will respond to a gunshot unless they see other people responding.

Thus, the effect a gunshot has on the crowd depends entirely on the effect it has on the victim, if there is one. If the victim responds to being shot by running away, then everybody will turn and bolt like a herd of antelope. If he responds by slumping over, then everybody will look out the corner of their eyes and, not seeing any action, they will dismiss the noise as irrelevant. This is true even for large caliber handguns.

I can support this statement with a personal experience:

A friend of mine bought - for a whopping $60 - a derringer chambered for the .410 shotgun cartridge. I told him that it was a piece-of-**** weapon. I said, "if you can't afford a real gun, carry a knife." But, as so often happens when I offer advice, my words fell on deaf ears. A few months later we were at a Hollywood Video store picking out movies when - Bang! - it went off in his pocket. There were about twenty people in the store at the time, some as close as ten feet away, and the response was... Nothing happened. My friend gave me a rather sheepish look, motioned to the door with his eyes and we calmly walked out of the store. (Note: My friend suffered only a minor powder burn and, yes, he did throw that $60 gun in the trash.)

I am also aware of, though did not personally witness, a man who shot himself in the ass in a crowded bar in downtown Tempe, AZ. He was sitting in a booth and had a Colt 1911 in his hip pocket. He walked out of the bar with a pained expression on his face and drove himself to the hospital. The bartender reports that she "heard a noise" but was unconcerned about it and did not know that a shot had been fired until she discovered the pool of blood under his table.

Also, about ten years ago in Northern California (I think it was Sacramento) a psycho who hated blonde women (Muslim, but before 9-11 when that wasn't an issue) took over a crowded bar with several handguns. He fired repeatly, shooting several people, and there was no immediate response. One person reported that he "thought it was firecrackers." Only when the psycho jumped onto a table and waved his guns around did the people catch on, at which point some ran and others froze, becoming hostages and having perverted sexual rituals performed on them.

Suppressors are a needless extravagance that will send you to prison if you obtain one illegally and will raise all kinds of red flags with LE if you obtain one legally. The only person whose mind is put at ease by suppressing pistol shots is the shooter, who otherwise might panic at the sound of his own gunfire, because he is the only one who knows what it represents.

Also, wet suppressors are very mission oriented as they require one to urinate in them before using them and they must be held upright to avoid staining one's clothes. Dry suppressors are bulky and ineffective. Why are they so popular? Television producers put a suppressor on every pistol because it looks vaguely sinister and, most importantly of all, the speakers on a TV set cannot reproduce a gunshot, so the presence of suppressors provides a logical reason why all gunshots on TV make a "poof" noise.

Suppressors are best left where they belong: in TV land. Carry an unsuppressed .22RF and don't worry about anybody responding to it.

Of course, the world is full of people who respond to every question by asking themselves, "What would John Wayne do?" Thus, I am sure that this thread will now be deluged by High Road discussants who insist (and truly believe) that they always respond to a gunshot by immediately springing into action, their minds whirring with activity, mentally triangulating on the source, identifying the caliber, plotting possible escape routes, etc., etc. Fine. Articulate that fantasy if you want.
 
wet suppressors are very mission oriented as they require one to urinate in them before using them

Excuse me?

Excuse me?


Wow, just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better, you come outta left field with another gem like this.

ETA: Guys, take notes, and subscribe to this thread. It WILL be as famous as the mall ninja duct-taped trauma plates/tactical golf cart thread. We are witnessing gun forum history in the making.
 
Shaka, you still don't get it. Suggesting to someone that he intentionally discharge a gun in a public place with people around to see how they react is outrageous. It shows an utter lack of common sense and judgment.

And it's bad enough that someone would suggest such a thing, but to then continually defend the suggestion is unbelievable. Whether you have reason to believe that people will, or will not, respond to the sound is beside the point.

A person of judgment who would presume to instruct others in the use of firearms does not suggest that someone intentionally discharge a firearm in a public place with people around to see if anyone reacts.
 
shaka said:
Also, wet suppressors are very mission oriented as they require one to urinate in them before using them and they must be held upright to avoid staining one's clothes.

I guess that, by those criteria, this is a very "mission oriented" thread.

Does anyone suppose that, if we just keep posting in it long enough, this discussion will be transmogrified into Hamlet?

-Brian, whose "single guiding principle to armed conflict" [in the words of the original post] is to not be there when the fight starts.

Edited to add: you know, Hank da Tank, I believe that you've got something there. I'll ask your forgiveness, I'll consider switching to decaf and I'm going to make some popcorn.

mhismilegreendf6.jpg
 
As GregGry says, "Tactics in general are the most important. In urban conflict you never know what distance you might be engaged with the enemy."

He's pretty much got it right. Tactics are based off of all the other elements needed to engage in combat. Distance is one of those elements. Unless you are sitting in the middle of a salt flat, distance is NOT always available to you. I can generally find a ridgeline, hill, gully or depression or rise to use to get really, really close a target. Then you have trees, boulders and so on. It gets even worse in an urban environment with fallen debris and hollowed out buildings. Then you have the darkness of night. Distance can work for you in SOME events.
 
Also, wet suppressors are very mission oriented as they require one to urinate in them before using them and they must be held upright to avoid staining one's clothes. Dry suppressors are bulky and ineffective. Why are they so popular? Television producers put a suppressor on every pistol because it looks vaguely sinister and, most importantly of all, the speakers on a TV set cannot reproduce a gunshot, so the presence of suppressors provides a logical reason why all gunshots on TV make a "poof" noise.

you've obviously never used any of these devices.
 
Humans assess risk based solely on their sense of vision

Right.

Never in the history of humanity has anyone ever uttered "I smell smoke!" or "Is that a fire alarm going off?"

This is also why humans never developed the ability to scream, because other humans would simply disregard this non-visual clue.

Also, about ten years ago in Northern California (I think it was Sacramento) a psycho who hated blonde women (Muslim, but before 9-11 when that wasn't an issue) took over a crowded bar with several handguns. He fired repeatly, shooting several people, and there was no immediate response. One person reported that he "thought it was firecrackers." Only when the psycho jumped onto a table and waved his guns around did the people catch on, at which point some ran and others froze, becoming hostages and having perverted sexual rituals performed on them.

Link to a newspaper article about this incident, or you loose all credibility...oh wait, too late.

Link please non-the-less

Plus for every single incident you can cite where there was a gunshot and no one noticed, I can point to police logs and show you lists of 911 calls that originated simply because someone heard what they thought might be gunfire.

Suppressors are a needless extravagance that will send you to prison if you obtain one illegally and will raise all kinds of red flags with LE if you obtain one legally.

Wait a second, your entire scenario is based on repelling a foreign invasion by third world troopers who cannot use a machinegun to hit targets beyond 200 yards due to poor training...why are you going to worry about police viewing you with suspicion?

Also, wet suppressors are very mission oriented as they require one to urinate in them before using them and they must be held upright to avoid staining one's clothes
.

Gghahahahaha.

Hey, can't you just wear mustard yellow colored clothing?

Television producers put a suppressor on every pistol because it looks vaguely sinister and, most importantly of all, the speakers on a TV set cannot reproduce a gunshot, so the presence of suppressors provides a logical reason why all gunshots on TV make a "poof" noise.

Right...
For the logic of 'silencers explain the lack of real gunfire sounds' to hold, ALL guns on a TV show would need to have supressors. A single 'normal' gun would ruin the illusion by having the same 'poof' sound.

So, please list 3 TV shows in the past 20 years that had almost exclusive use of silencers on the firearms depicted.
 
most importantly of all, the speakers on a TV set cannot reproduce a gunshot, so the presence of suppressors provides a logical reason why all gunshots on TV make a "poof" noise.

This is same reason TV shows don't have explosions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top