Bullet points
MeTheSheeple loves it when several of his interests converge. Thanks to CBS News and other outlets, we've got that.
"CBS News Investigates" just aired this relatively lengthy package about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm bullets being fired by Americans. This fresh investigative story, unfortunately, is cast almost verbatim as this two-year-old story on "The American Thinker" -- whatever that is. One of the chief arguments made by the main source involves a three-year-old incident. And the guy making the claims has been arguing the same thing for several decades.
That's not to say there's no worthwhile story here. Clearly, the effectiveness of the U.S. military is incredibly important. If our soldiers can't kill or disable the bad guys, more of the good guys will get hurt.
Yet MeTheSheeple is appalled at how CBS likely was approached by a source who has consistently said the same thing for two years, and then bills it as an investigative piece. Worse, CBS News offers an uncut interview with the one source (see sidebar there, "Are these bullets duds?") but no uncut interviews with sources with opposing viewpoints. There's also no apparent effort to contact troops in the field or troops who have returned from the field, some of whom might just have something to offer.
MeTheSheeple won't pretend to be an expert, but he will point out several things. First, the M-16 was designed to fire high-velocity rounds that tumbled and fragmented. Early on, the rifle was changed with tighter rifling that reduced the tumbling. Then the United States developed a different bullet with a solid steel core -- to penetrate protective armor -- that didn't really fragment. Then the United States adopted the M-4 carbine, which has a shorter barrel length, which reduces velocity. Suddenly, it's no longer such a high-velocity, tumbling, fragmenting bullet.
True experts can better say what all this means. The reading isn't very pleasant but you can get an idea of what's going on.
Whatever happens, the current United States 5.56mm round is the same basic bullet used by other NATO countries, plus countless others. It's also not drastically different from the round used by Russia since the 1970s. People can argue about "the better bullet" back and forth ad nauseum, and have, for years. One classic example is this Usenet thread, which reached 119 messages. Amidst all the technical stuff, MeTheSheeple was amused by this opinion favoring 7.62x51mm bullets over the 5.56x45mm bullets:
Add: Via a Fark.com discussion, this link.
"CBS News Investigates" just aired this relatively lengthy package about the effectiveness of the 5.56mm bullets being fired by Americans. This fresh investigative story, unfortunately, is cast almost verbatim as this two-year-old story on "The American Thinker" -- whatever that is. One of the chief arguments made by the main source involves a three-year-old incident. And the guy making the claims has been arguing the same thing for several decades.
That's not to say there's no worthwhile story here. Clearly, the effectiveness of the U.S. military is incredibly important. If our soldiers can't kill or disable the bad guys, more of the good guys will get hurt.
Yet MeTheSheeple is appalled at how CBS likely was approached by a source who has consistently said the same thing for two years, and then bills it as an investigative piece. Worse, CBS News offers an uncut interview with the one source (see sidebar there, "Are these bullets duds?") but no uncut interviews with sources with opposing viewpoints. There's also no apparent effort to contact troops in the field or troops who have returned from the field, some of whom might just have something to offer.
MeTheSheeple won't pretend to be an expert, but he will point out several things. First, the M-16 was designed to fire high-velocity rounds that tumbled and fragmented. Early on, the rifle was changed with tighter rifling that reduced the tumbling. Then the United States developed a different bullet with a solid steel core -- to penetrate protective armor -- that didn't really fragment. Then the United States adopted the M-4 carbine, which has a shorter barrel length, which reduces velocity. Suddenly, it's no longer such a high-velocity, tumbling, fragmenting bullet.
True experts can better say what all this means. The reading isn't very pleasant but you can get an idea of what's going on.
Whatever happens, the current United States 5.56mm round is the same basic bullet used by other NATO countries, plus countless others. It's also not drastically different from the round used by Russia since the 1970s. People can argue about "the better bullet" back and forth ad nauseum, and have, for years. One classic example is this Usenet thread, which reached 119 messages. Amidst all the technical stuff, MeTheSheeple was amused by this opinion favoring 7.62x51mm bullets over the 5.56x45mm bullets:
However, if you're involved in more serious social interacting with people who hold views which differ radically from yours, at 500m the 7.62(mm) makes for a more convincing argument.
Add: Via a Fark.com discussion, this link.
posted by MeTheSheeple at 8:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home