andrew.anderson Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 This is from a few weeks ago. Our 2004 Subaru Outback Sedan hit 200,000 miles. Here's to another 100,000. http://www.zombielyptic.com/attachments/fun-off-topic/1671d1379299087-off-fopic-thread-topic-forum-talk-about-anything-nothing-20130826_173816.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 What happens when a container gets lost: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRU2PxMOh18]Lost in the Deep - YouTube[/ame] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 common, any bullet can kill. design or not. You forget about the point about full metal jacket - injure a man and you tie down two more to take care of him, at least long enough for them to determine if it was fatal or not. Blow off his head and there's no point to be busy with any kind of aid work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Sheople don't care about these things. King obama says guns are bad, so they are. Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 There are bad guns too - some are badly designed and might injure the shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 You forget about the point about full metal jacket - injure a man and you tie down two more to take care of him, at least long enough for them to determine if it was fatal or not. Blow off his head and there's no point to be busy with any kind of aid work. the whole wound over kill thing is ridiculous. bullets are made to kill things. period. there were efforts made to make it a cleaner kill, less mess and "torture" to recipients of those bullets. the process of making them smaller and lighter was to allow a soldier to carry more. i have long been an anti authority/ laws kind of guy, and i really dont identify with the whole military mindset, and even i can see the flaws in thinking that two soldiers are going to stop advancing to help out a buddy that got wounded. there are non-lethal rounds out there, but im willing to bet they arent used in wars or police actions. the 223 and 556 have ballistic limits that are defined, just like any other bullet. im sure someone with a bit of time and google-fu could find what the limits of the majors were for their kill distance as well as their wound range. i thought i read somewhere that a 556 has a kill distance of 1000-1300 meters, and at 1300 it becomes a wound instead of a kill. or something like that. im rambling now, i dont want to work today. i also want to figure out how to win free guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSiWRX Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It's not "non-lethal," it's "less lethal." <-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges '16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 the whole wound over kill thing is ridiculous. bullets are made to kill things. period. there were efforts made to make it a cleaner kill, less mess and "torture" to recipients of those bullets. the process of making them smaller and lighter was to allow a soldier to carry more. i have long been an anti authority/ laws kind of guy, and i really dont identify with the whole military mindset, and even i can see the flaws in thinking that two soldiers are going to stop advancing to help out a buddy that got wounded. there are non-lethal rounds out there, but im willing to bet they arent used in wars or police actions. the 223 and 556 have ballistic limits that are defined, just like any other bullet. im sure someone with a bit of time and google-fu could find what the limits of the majors were for their kill distance as well as their wound range. i thought i read somewhere that a 556 has a kill distance of 1000-1300 meters, and at 1300 it becomes a wound instead of a kill. or something like that. im rambling now, i dont want to work today. i also want to figure out how to win free guns! hence why you're talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 hence why you're talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about And that's why everyone should at least serve some time in the military, even if it's just a few months, to understand what it's really about. I'm not sure about how it is today if there's more focus on terrorist actions and less on conventional warfare, but there should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 hence why you're talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about yup. just personal opinion (and interpretation) from reading what everyone else posts on the interwebs. except for the ballistics specs of bullets. that part is real, if youd take the time to look it up. but at least i dont just fall in line with all the "take two extra people out of a fight by hurting their buddy" opinions, or the "smaller rounds are meant to wound someone, not kill them" fools. edit: i was probably way off on the distances, 1000m is probably out of the effective range for those rounds. cant remember which one i was thinking of for that distance, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSiWRX Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You forget about the point about full metal jacket - injure a man and you tie down two more to take care of him, at least long enough for them to determine if it was fatal or not. Blow off his head and there's no point to be busy with any kind of aid work. the whole wound over kill thing is ridiculous. bullets are made to kill things. period. there were efforts made to make it a cleaner kill, less mess and "torture" to recipients of those bullets. the process of making them smaller and lighter was to allow a soldier to carry more. i have long been an anti authority/ laws kind of guy, and i really dont identify with the whole military mindset, and even i can see the flaws in thinking that two soldiers are going to stop advancing to help out a buddy that got wounded. hence why you're talking out of your ass about something you know nothing about And that's why everyone should at least serve some time in the military, even if it's just a few months, to understand what it's really about. ^ I think that really nails it. There's a level of deeper of camaraderie that exists with any group of people who share something that's greater than the self. I have never had military service. I come from a longstanding military family as well as have a number of friend who are/were. But in looking at the relationships of my friends and relatives who either are active-duty or were formerly soldiers - or are now otherwise engaged in similar vocations (i.e. security, law-enforcement) - with others of their profession, I see a similar kind of bond as those of groups that I belong to: groups for which I would, and have, given up considerably more than what I thought possible for. I can only imagine the kind of bond that would be formed between men and women who are facing or have faced death together. <-- I love Winky, my "periwinkle" (ABP) LGT! - Allen / Usual Suspect "DumboRAT" / One of the Three Stooges '16 Outback, '16 WRX, 7th Subaru Family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Thre might be a democratic benefit to a mandatory draft, but isn't it nice to have a professional, effective, well trained military force that the volunteer force brought us? The 60s and 70s showed how poorly a draft army performs. Having folks that want to be in the miltary makes it a much more effective force relative to an involuntary draft force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 That would depend on the circumstances. Of course a conscript army isn't as motivated as a professional. What was the problem during the 60's and 70's was that the drafted people were sent away to a foreign land with little motivation. If the question had been to stand up against an invasion on the home turf then the motivation would be higher. Military service is more than just learning to shoot - it's a lot more. First aid medical trainingThe effect of various weapons and possible protection against them. Not possible in all cases, but you can at least take some precautions if you know that there may be hostile action. Also some precautions against chemical weapons.Large scale organization (a large company structure and an army share a lot), so officer training is actually useful outside the military structure.Training in guarding various objects - and that can be an advantage if you end up in a security company.Operating 2-way radios in the field in an orderly manner.Information classification, what to reveal - or not. Field methods of encryption etc.Learning the spelling alphabet (also called phonetic alphabet). Also used by ham operators. (except that Spanish, Italian and Russian operators seems to be very creative here)Some general household training. Eat and sleep when you can and keep your stuff in decent order. Having had military boot camp training is also an advantage even if you end up in the home guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I don't foresee a military invasion of the USA anytime soon, Nils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 No - your threat is from the inside, which makes it a bit trickier, but much of the experience is actually also applicable for internal threats. And good organized units are useful even at events when nature is taking over. Katrina, Sandy and bad winter storms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Luckily there is a law against using the regular military within the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even for guarding purposes and emergency work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even for guarding purposes and emergency work? National Guard does that. They are not regular military units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 so out of you service men, do you prefer the 7.62 over the .556 because you think it will take more bullets to down an enemy? do you prescribe to the whole argument that the geneva convention was in part responsible for going to a "less lethal" round? do you agree that the slower .556 was too damaging to human tissue? do you think the higher velocity of the newer m16s causes less kills by going straight through the target instead of tumbling and making mashed taters of innards? anyone know the official range of the m16 with the military rounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Range is not really important for most fighting - firepower is. Only snipers really care about range. (OK, range is like comparing dick length so it's something that's up for any gun) The M16 doesn't have .556 caliber - it has the 5.56mm caliber. Smaller rounds - but you can pack more of them in the gun for the same weight in ammunition. And the shooter is able to carry more extras too compared to the 7.62. Personally I have a preference for the 9mm Swedish K, but that's out of service now, so it would be a 5.56mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Thre might be a democratic benefit to a mandatory draft, but isn't it nice to have a professional, effective, well trained military force that the volunteer force brought us? The 60s and 70s showed how poorly a draft army performs. Having folks that want to be in the miltary makes it a much more effective force relative to an involuntary draft force. Vietnam was a wildly unpopular war WWI? WWII? Men wanted to fight. They lined up for it. It's all about perception. Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 So you want to start a world war so we can have an effective draft force? Are you disputing that a volunteer army is better trained and more effective than a draft force? And I don't think military historians give high ratings to the professional skills of our ground forces in WW2. We largely won through supply and ordinance, not foot soldier skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ]So you want to start a world war so we can have an effective draft force? [/b]Are you disputing that a volunteer army is better trained and more effective than a draft force? And I don't think military historians give high ratings to the professional skills of our ground forces in WW2. We largely won through supply and ordinance, not foot soldier skill. and the cow jumped OVER the moon Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 so out of you service men, do you prefer the 7.62 over the .556 because you think it will take more bullets to down an enemy? do you prescribe to the whole argument that the geneva convention was in part responsible for going to a "less lethal" round? do you agree that the slower .556 was too damaging to human tissue? do you think the higher velocity of the newer m16s causes less kills by going straight through the target instead of tumbling and making mashed taters of innards? anyone know the official range of the m16 with the military rounds? it's 5.56 not .556 BIG difference http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/FreekoSwaheez/223vs50bmg.jpg Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisty Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 The M16 doesn't have .556 caliber - it has the 5.56mm caliber. oops, misplaced a period... hate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.