4thPointOfContact
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 852
I'm fairly sure the groups we're fighting against in the Middle East aren't signatories to the Coventions, so why aren't they using them now?
Maybe I'm cynical to a fault, but this administration would only agree to this change if this somehow disadvantaged legal civilian gun owners, (supply and price, maybe?) and also somehow made our military less effective. (Yep, I said it). Can someone cite any decision in the last 7 years that has improved combat readiness? Much less any administration decision that has helped gun owners?I don't guess anyone has stopped to think why the US military doesn't use a lot HP ammo. It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.
Pretty simple really.
That might be true for long gun ammo, but pistol ammo?I don't guess anyone has stopped to think why the US military doesn't use a lot HP ammo. It's not because they can't, it's because they would rather use armor piercing rounds for most combat situations. LE agencies and military police use HP because their targets generally aren't wearing body armor and they limit collateral damage to bystanders.
Pretty simple really.
A Law Enforcement officer on the street of any city in America is far more likely to encounter body armor than a soldier fighting your traditional guerrilla fighter in Iraq or Afghanistan. So calling our current ammo armor piercing is a pretty moot point. Where HP rounds would shine is Afghans and Iraqis are very thin, not large like their American counterparts loaded up with fast food...
They can't afford to change ammo, much less guns.
Maybe I'm cynical to a fault, but this administration would only agree to this change if this somehow disadvantaged legal civilian gun owners, (supply and price, maybe?) and also somehow made our military less effective. (Yep, I said it). Can someone cite any decision in the last 7 years that has improved combat readiness? Much less any administration decision that has helped gun owners?
Nope, this one has to hurt both somehow or these folks woudn't be doing it.
Justin,
imagine the use of 7.62 soft point hunting ammo in the battlefield. My ignorant mind says that it would be significantly more lethal than the thru-and-thru of the big FMJ, and more lethal than a 5.56 hollow point.
As far as armor penetration goes, I don't think it makes a difference considering the plates worn in combat are supposed to stop a 7.62 FMJ anyway. (again taking a wild guess)
That's like saying you can't afford to buy ammo to go shooting because your cable TV bill is $300 per month.
They could easily afford it, it's just a question of priority on where the budget is spent.
That might be true for long gun ammo, but pistol ammo?
Yes.
I might be wrong about this but I thought the 5.7 was supposed to be an armor defeating pistol ammo?I'm not sure if there us such a thing as armor piercing pistol ammo.
I could be wrong.
If it's not used in war against other nations, no Geneva Convention violation.