First: Sorry to Damocles and the rest of the BAS team if I was too agrumentative. You are doing great things for OPF.
On the double-tap issue: Typing "double tap" and "MOUT" into Google will give you more than enough to convince you that it is a term used in the military. Examples:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/militar....ppk.pdf - One of those "civilian" field manuals on CQB techniques..
http://call.army.mil/products/nftf/mayjun00/hernandez.htm
http://www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF162/CF162.appp.pdf MOUT Training 75th RANGER REGIMENT, and so on..btw. double tap is two to the chest.(according to those links)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, you are quoteing "In Somalia" a lot. Well that was 10 years ago... and a lot can change in 10 years... (btw, if you hadn't allready guessed, the BAS Deltas/Rangers are set in the modern time-period i.e. 2003...)<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I do quote other peoples posts and reply to them. I didn't start the BHD arguments. IIRC, Damocles did.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FYI if you do a little research you will also find that until the advent of the M249 SAW, the M60 was considered a ?light? machine gun, not a medium machine gun. In Ranger squads SAW gunners are referred to as ?Automatic Riflemen?<span id='postcolor'> Um, I'll leave you as the ultimate authority on that one, but I think it was only the E3 that was called a LMG, since it could easily be used by a single operator. Btw. the M249 SAW is mostly used as an automatic rifle. It is an official designation, not just something the Rangers came up with. Remember the BAR?
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
With the first statement reference M855 vs. M80 (which is 7.62mm not 5.56mm) was there a point in there somewhere you were trying to make?? My statement was involving the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a lightweight projectile (the 62 grain M855) Vs the kinetic energy and retained velocity of a heavier projectile with a better ballistic coefficient (a 175 grain .308 caliber projectile such as M118LR) My information is supported by physics and science and countless hours of collected data.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, it was the beginning of the point: "the 5.56 isn't shit".
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the claim that M855 can penetrate a PASGT helmet at 1100 meters, I?d love to see the data. Additionally, since that is well beyond the maximum effective range of M855, again I fail to see the point behind that statement. If you can hit a target the size of a PASGT at 1100 meters with M855, then you need to try out for the US Army Service Rifle Team. I can give you the Coach, and the NCOICs phone number and email address. Send pictures. <span id='postcolor'> I seem to have troubles to see where I wrote people could hit the helmet at that range, how odd. I only said that the bullet was CAPABLE and superior to the M80. Again, leading up to my point about: "the 5.56 isn't shit". Source(not really the source I had read, but the first thing I managed to find on the internet): http://remtek.com/arms/fn/minimi/index.htm
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The SS109 5.56mm bullet easily outperforms the M80 7.62mm, as it will penetrate the U.S. Army steel helmet at 1,100 meters. <span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In your OWN statement you claim that M855 will fragment when it hits human tissue at velocities above 3500 FPS. Considering that M855 has a muzzle velocity of 3300 FPS at the muzzle and about 2985 FPS at 25 meters? Well what was your point again? (Values as measured thousands of times at the USAMU Ammunition Test Facility, Parks Range, Fort Benning Georgia, US Army Infantry Center and School. Measured by Oehler Cronograph systems, and SUIS ASCOR electronic target systems, providing muzzle, in flight, and downrange data collection.) <span id='postcolor'> Did you know that "2" and "3" are situated really close togheter on the keyboard? And it isn't a typo that stands out either. Here my point is that unless the M885 is moving at less than 2500fps then it will not "pass cleanly through human tissue" as you said it would.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Oh and bones, not fat are what disturbs the stabilization of a projectile and causes tumbling. An overweight person would actually be more likely to survive a gunshot would as fat cells, and the human body in general are largely water, and water absorbs and redistributes energy extremely efficiently. <span id='postcolor'> Oh, did I say that the fat fellow would die? Nope. I said his wounds would be more severe since the M80 would be less likely to overpenetrate. This has not much to do with hydrodynamics, more with the simple fact that the bullet wouldn't overpenetrate.
And it is not necessarily just bones that cause bullets to tumble. This is the place where you should have started with the hydrodynamics. Something might get lost in the translation so I'll go with the easy way of putting this: All bullets with a centre of gravity towards the rear will tumble in a dense medium like human tissue since they "want" to go tail first. Actually, the bullets "want" to go rear end first in air as well, but the rotation of the bullet prevents this.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
CAR-15s where also using M193 (55 grain, copper jacketed lead, no steel penetrator) Or 9mm Parabelum, Rangers didn?t have them, and Delta were using XM177s, with Optical Sights and spitzer bullets, not M855. The Rangers had lots of problems with killing and incapacitating targets that were all on a narcotic, further reducing the effectiveness of the 62 grain steel penetrator. <span id='postcolor'> Lots of new stuff there for me, I only saw the film, heard the book was..not so good. Lets just repeat one thing: You can't expect to just shoot one bullet into the torso of a determined attacker and expect him to drop dead. The use of carbines does not enhance the potential of the 5.56x45mm, even if it is M193. Btw. seems odd that they were mixing M193 and M855, especially since you can't use the M855 in a weapon meant to fire the M193..(effectively)
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
As to the question of whether or not I may be joking, absolutely not, you should do some more research. Just following the links regarding M855 Ball you?ll discover all manner of information on calibers being evaluated to replace the 5.56mm because of its poor performance. <span id='postcolor'> Seriously? You said:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its kind of immaterial if you punch someones vest and they still kill you because the werent even knocked off their feet.<span id='postcolor'> Â "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This would mean that if you actually found a bullet capable of knocking you opponent off his feet, then it would also knock you down. Not very practical.
People are always looking for improvements, that's nothing new. If the 5.56 is really so utterly useless, as you say it is, why are then many countries still moving away from 7.62x51mm based weapons and onto 5.56x45mm based weapons? Not to mention that the US have been using the things for nearly 30 years now..
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M249 Was intended to replace the M60 as the machine gun in Infantry Platoons. This was immediately reworked immediately after fielding, due to the lack of firepower provided by the 5.56mm, even when fired fully automatic. <span id='postcolor'> AFAIK, on a squad level, then one M249 would replace two M16A1s. It was only supposed to replace some M60s in non-infantry units. The M240 replaced the M60.
