...one more worthless piece of paper on warfare "civility" doctored up by pathetic politicians who knew NOTHING of what warfare is REALLY like. Show me one enemy the US has ever taken on that has adhered to either the Hague Convention or the Geneva Convention (yet doesn't hesitate to cry for its protections when captured by US forces.) Land mines have fallen on the "inhumane" list of weapons, because they more maim than kill. "Dum dum" bullets that DON'T kill people in one shot should be on that list, too. If I was the one getting shot, I'd rather it be fatal, instantly, rather than lie there bleeding to death over several minutes. Seems to me, killing someone with a bullet that only wounds you traumatically yet not always fatally is more inhumane that killing a person outright with a heavy expanding bullet. Besides, in any worse-case scenario where the world as a whole falls to sh*t and governments collapse, who's going to enforce any Hague Convention, anyway? And when terrorists blow up children, who's there to enforce the fact that said conventions also "illegalize" said acts of terror? .

Since we're getting headed this way eventually, what are some thoughts on the best close-quarters/short range street fighting guns (>100m)? Certainly the 5.56mm weapons excel here, except for the risk of over-penetration (or lack thereof for bad guys behind barricades.) Heavy as it was, the venerable Tommygun, the .45ACP submachine gun of Chicago fame, was probably the best room sweeper ever (I assume that shooting people with shotguns is "inhumane" also?) Of course, the Uzi series are popular toys as well. And certainly scores of Sten-types proliferate the Middle Eastern region, also. I've always been a fan of the P90 ever since seeing it on Stargate SG-1, and even moreso after firing off a couple hundred rounds at the range (the 5.7mm rounds are unhindered by body armor, but there is a risk of over-penetration.) There must be some credibility of the 10mm and .40 S&W rounds, because these seem to be limited to military and law enforcement organizations only (as is the 5.7 of the P90 and "nickle pistol".) I think the most innovation magazines are on the Calico series weapons, with the helical tubes on top of the weapons (mostly pitol/SMG ammo.) I've always been a fan of some of the carbines available in the US, like those firing .357 or .44 Magnum ammo, .44-40 Win, or even .350 Rem Magnum (yes, "cowboy guns", but perfect for short range take down, especially if using some of the newer polymer-tip bullets.) Seeing as we're talking military-grade weapons and ammo, the use of ANSB (Annular Nose, Solid Base) pistol/SMG ammo to render body armor useless would be ideal for taking on terrorist elements. Considering how "inhumane" pretty much every weapon is (are there any "humane" ones?), let's forget all about that Hague Convention crap for this discussion. .

Shotguns can be very effective in close range fighting, but ammunition is a problem. You can carry a couple of loaded 9mm SMG magazines in place of a dozen 12 gauge rounds. As for it being inhumane, the Germans in WW1 tried to amke that claim. When the Americans came over and got involved with the trench fighting, they brought along shotguns. These were so effective the Germans raised a stink and tried to get them banned but had no luck.

Dogtag, I agree with you, but the really isn't any way to guarantee a one shot kill everytime. The closest thing would be something that kills quickling, like a rapidly expanding hollow point. But then you do have to ask yourself with medical care like it is today, at least for US forces, might it not be better to be wounded by a regular round and have a good chance of surviving? After all, in Iraq, the dead to wounded ratio is about 1 to 8, better than ever before in US history. It would be lower still if it were not for the use of all the roadside bombs and shortage of body armor. I haven't seen exact figures for Afganistan but I think the numbers are even better there since there aren't as many bombings.

Eh? I am not under the impressions that 9mm bullets have better terminal performance than 5.56, not to mention the lack of lethality after 100 yards.

the original desinger for the ak-47 stated he didn't want to change to the 5.56 but he was forced to due to the united states doing so. kalashnikov stated he hated the 5.56 and only did it due to being forced to. this was in an interview he did on the history channel tales of the gun

The AK family switched over to 5.45mm, with the AK-74 series, not 5.56mm. There may be some mods out there configured to fire the 5.56mm ammo specifically. But the official caliber of the Russian weapon IS 5.45mm, even if they claim the weapons are capable of firing 5.56mm rounds. .

Some of the AK100 series fire the 556 round. I do not believe kalashnikov was forced into it, making the weapons in said round is simply a way of gaining exports. doggtag, you may laugh at the Hague and Geneva conventions, and say that they were written by politicians who have no understanding of war, but you are missing the point. Unless both sides have signed the treaties, they are not in effect, however if both sides have, it leads to a more humane warfare. If you were ever taken as a PoW I am sure you would be delighted to know your enemy was going by the Geneva convention.

I don't know how youg or experienced in real war are those who claim that the Geneva Convention is "a rag made by politicians" but I can assure you that there are thousands of veterans of WW2 who lived a good part (if not all) their remaining life after the war carrying one or two non expanding bullets in their bodies. My grandfather had two Russian Mossin bullets in his right leg who by the time he could be taken to a hospital behind the lines where partially enclosed in the bone so it was impossible to remove them safely. That left him with a limping leg but not with a wooden one. If these would have been expanding bullets the situation would have been different. Also, thousands of people died horrible deaths caused by flamethrowers. Would you like to be on the "receiving" end of one of those? How about being a POW and being "questioned" without any respect to the Geneva Convention? You know it's rather strange that in WW2 the US troops where the most civilised and humane jailors and all German troops would prefer to surrender to the Allies rather than the Russian. The situation however changed during Vietnam, when the CIA and later Marines advisors started to train the South Vietnamese and some of the US troops to use torture on prisoners. And the stain of that way of thinking is still present in some of the areas of the US military (see Iraq prisoner abuse). Imagine how would it be to be the prisoner of another country who decides to throw the Geneva Convention out of the window because "the situation is atypical". Wow, what war is "typical" I wonder?

Reminds me of an incident when I was still teenager. I was spending time with my dad with his new unit's AOR in the southern Philippines when I noticed that the local militia seemed to be armed almost exclusively with CAR-15's which was very unusual. As it turns out, an MP battalion had been deployed in the area as there was a shortage of available infantry. These guys were equipped primarily with CAR-15's. One fine day, they were moved into an area were some rebels were spotted. The terrain was rice paddies along the road leading up to forested high ground. They promptly came under fire from rebels armed with Garands, FALs and BARs and couldn't shoot back because they didn't have range. They were basically pinned the whole day and withdrew under cover of darkness. Soon after the commander of the MP diverted a shipment of M14's intended for the local militia and gave up most of their CAR-15's for the duration of their deployment. Everyone was quite pleased with the arrangement.