Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Horsesoldier RE:Ammo choice 12/30/2005 6:06:38 PM

>>Doctrine Current US doctrine is aimed, semi-auto fire at range. The problem with this is that the current standard round (5.56mm) was designed for auto-fire (as the M-16 originally was). The plan was to make the round light, so you would have plenty of ammo. It is a high-velocity round, however, to give it killing power and accuracy. My point is that the round was not designed for current doctrine. While the 5.56 can be used, a larger round would be a better fit.<< This is a false claim. There were a number of studies which suggested the merits of multiple lighter projectiles versus a single heavy round in the 1950s (these also led to interest in flechette rounds, multiple flechette rounds, duplex bullets, etc.) but those studies were not doctrine. Troops were trained from the start to use their M16s on semi-automatic for aimed fire. >>Battle environment Ironically, our doctrine doesn't mesh well with the current battlefield in Iraq(which tends to be close-quarters combat). Don't get me wrong, the doctrine will work, but a high-velocity round (capable of shooting 300m) isn't needed for clearing a room (<10m). Such a round is overkill & can even be counter-productive in that you are more likely to get collateral damage (from misses and ricochets that will travel farther). So, for example, a .45 ACP round would probably be a better choice for clearing a room (a large, low-velocity round).<< 5.56mm performs exceptionally at close range. You're missing the entire debate here, again -- where 5.56mm does not perform as well as might be hoped is at longer (300+ meters, especially, some might say greater than 200 meters). If .45 ACP were preferable, then one would expect to see people who have the choice using .45 ACP for room clearing. This is not what is seen -- Delta, for instance, clears rooms with M4s, no .45 SMGs. Likewise, civilian SWAT type teams are increasingly switching from pistol caliber SMGs to 5.56mm rifles and carbines. >>This raises a question: Do you use different sized ammo for different circumstances or use a good general purpose round? Presently, we tend to do the former (5.56mm, 7.62mm, 9mm, 12.7mm). Could you think of a round that would work well for both a pistol and a sniper rifle? It would be hard to do.<< Again, false. We use 5.56mm as a general service round for service rifles, PDW applications, light machineguns etc. Recognizing that an assault rifle round, by definition, will not be a good sniping round, or a medium machinegun round, we use 7.62mm for that, in smaller numbers. >>I've heard other calibers mentioned, but for the sake of pragmatism, I'd just go to the next larger round (7.62mm). The 5.56mm could be used up for training and practice, so none of it would be wasted.<< Insofar as 7.62x51mm was ballistically identical to .30-06 when introduced, it is fair to say that the US military has been trying to get rid of the round for service rifles since the 1920s (.276 Pedersen), but sadly various individuals whose conservatism bordered on dinosaur like kept us stuck with it through the 1960s. It was an excessive cartridge for a practical service rifle in 1929, and it remains such today -- returning to 7.62x51mm is no more sensible than returning to .30-06. The only reason 7.62x51mm ever entered service in the first place is because of the inept incompetence of the US Army arsenal system, notable also for rigging competition to get the M14 into service and then trying to do the same to keep it there . . . At the end of the day, 5.56x45mm does the job, and does it well. A somewhat heavier alternative (276 Pederseon, 280/30 British, or 6.8 Rem SPC are all in roughly the same class, so the idea has been out there forever, historically speaking . . .) might be preferable for applications beyond 100-300 meters, but 7.62x51mm is not the answer, as, indeed, it never was, for an infantry rifle.

Quote Reply

doggtag Nice post, PPR 12/30/2005 6:21:04 PM

Here's some other goodies to browse through: link AHA! So it turns out that 5.56mm and .233" are NOT the same after all! (Damn! One more thing people been trying to lie to me about all these years!) Sounds like we'd all be a lot better off going fully to the newer 77-grain Mk262, which I think I would trust more than the lighter M855, and stopping production of the 55-grain M193 entirely and relegating remaining stocks to training use only. But I doubt we'll see that happen any faster than getting a new weapon in a new caliber, either! (This here is why I argue that infantry small arms are not getting enough attention: capability-wise, there is plenty of argument that we should've abandoned the 55-grain round long ago.) There's a ton of interesting stuff in the links, both for us novices and those of us professing our expertise. Certainly clears up a lot of misconceptions I had (but I still question if it's the most ideal caliber for a battle rifle).

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Ammo choice 12/30/2005 6:36:53 PM

HorseSoldier, it sounds like you're making a case AGAINST the 7.62. So then, if some are suggesting 5.56 is a "questionable performer", and you suggest 7.62 is too much, then maybe 6.5 or 6.8 IS the way to go. Makes perfect sense to me. But, as retooling to mass produce new ammo and fabricating hundreds of thousands of new ARs and SAWs/MMGs costs billions of dollars, I guess we'll just have to expect more those "various individuals whose conservatism bordered on dinosaur like" will keep us chained to 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons for the next several decades, solely on the grounds of tradition (the most foolish of all excuses), cost, and the explanation that "they'll continue to work just fine for the role their intended, just so long as troops adhere to training/doctrine and have a little faith in their equipment."

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Nice post, PPR 12/30/2005 6:38:51 PM

>>Sounds like we'd all be a lot better off going fully to the newer 77-grain Mk262, which I think I would trust more than the lighter M855, and stopping production of the 55-grain M193 entirely and relegating remaining stocks to training use only.<< Mk 262 is a great round, switching to it is not, necessarily, a bad idea, except that it means surrendering the AP qualities of M855. As for M193, it should be issued only to those occasional National Guard units (if there are any . . .) still using M16A1s . . . though odds things have occasionally happened during the post 9/11 era. The Ammo Oracle website, however, makes a rather compelling argument *for* 55 grain ammo, not against it. >>(This here is why I argue that infantry small arms are not getting enough attention: capability-wise, there is plenty of argument that we should've abandoned the 55-grain round long ago.)<< The evidence is very good that 5.56mm, 62 grain rounds fired center of mass do the job nicely.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Ammo choice 12/30/2005 6:50:27 PM

>>it sounds like you're making a case AGAINST the 7.62.<< 7.62x51mm is quite good for what it is used for today -- machineguns, sniper rifles, and DMRs. It was never a good round for a standard infantry rifle. It's adoption was basically forced by the fact that US Army arsenal system leadership thought all we really needed post-WW2 was a magazine fed Garand . . . so they built one and spiced it up with a short-case .30-06 round (but loaded to same power levels with newer propellant) to make it seem "modern" . . . >>So then, if some are suggesting 5.56 is a "questionable performer", and you suggest 7.62 is too much, then maybe 6.5 or 6.8 IS the way to go. Makes perfect sense to me.<< Yes, certainly, if the desire is to increase performance at longer ranges, at the expense of ammunition carried and CQB performance (the decreased efficiency for either 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is rather slight compared 7.62x51, of course). 6.8 Rem SPC is a good round, and probably what we should have fielded in, say, 1949 (ballistics are quite similar to the excellent 280/30 British . . .). However, it bears noting that smaller cross section bullets are inherently better than larger ones at penetrating armor, so there is a question of whether the larger rounds are good for fighting symmetrical opponents, even if they appear to be somewhat better for fighting unwashed savages with an AK and a Koran to their name . . .

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Nice post, PPR 12/31/2005 1:31:22 AM

->"Mk 262 is a great round, switching to it is not, necessarily, a bad idea, except that it means surrendering the AP qualities of M855." Maybe so, but... Is it US doctrine to equip all infantrymen with assault rifles capable of defeating light armor? (12mm wasn't it?) Since we don't yet seem to be facing foes with their own effective body armor (or heavily-armored civilian vehicles and technicals...yet), do we really need the extra penetrative ability, especially when there seems to be considerable concern of over-penetration risking non-combatants harm? Besides, I don't see why the same technology could not be incorporated into larger caliber (6.5-6.8) that would allow us even better penetrative abilities. I would also think that a heavier ball round that offers superior shockwave damage and fragmentive effect would be more preferrable against personnel: I thought that was the reasoning behind the 77-grain Mk 262. And considering how "private" investigations led to the improvement the Mk 262 offers over the M193, I would certainly think that further evaluation would also yield a much improved AP-type penetrating round, if doctrine suddenly decided it was needed. Here, I think the longer design of the 6.5 Grendel might actually support a cannelured AP design that offers superior fragmenting in addition to excellent penetration. Only the guys and gals expirementing with ammo designs know exactly what can be achieved. ->"The Ammo Oracle website, however, makes a rather compelling argument *for* 55 grain ammo, not against it." Again, partially, maybe so. But if you read enough of their paragraphs/points, you'll also see they suggest there ARE better alternatives in 5.56mm than the 55 grainer, depending on mission requirements. We're talking about the US military's needs here, not what SHTF/TEOTWAWKI civilians' want. We're so prideful and gloating about how we outfit our fighting men and women with the best planes, best ships, best armor, best handheld electronic battlefield goodies, and best food, so we should be giving them the best bullets also, not keeping a sometimes-questionably-adequate-enough round in production solely on the grounds of cost.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Nice post, PPR 12/31/2005 2:13:05 AM

>>Maybe so, but... Is it US doctrine to equip all infantrymen with assault rifles capable of defeating light armor? (12mm wasn't it?)<< Apparently, since we've been using M855 as a primary round for years now. The other thing to consider with Mk 262 is that it is going to perform better against personnel, but more poorly against vehicles -- and one of the recurring complaints about 5.56mm from Iraq is its marginal utility in hosing oncoming vehicles/VBIEDs. Of course, whether or not we should even be considering a need to provide each troop out there a weapon that will drop a compact car or bull elephant in its tracks is probably a matter of contention. >>Since we don't yet seem to be facing foes with their own effective body armor (or heavily-armored civilian vehicles and technicals...yet), do we really need the extra penetrative ability, especially when there seems to be considerable concern of over-penetration risking non-combatants harm?<< Like I say, M855 translates into better performance against engine blocks on regular cars than you'll get with either M193 or Mk 262. I suppose they could split the difference and make a bullet with Mk 262's added weight by replacing the M855's steel tip with a tungsten one, though the cost goes through the roof with that, I'd think. All that said, I'm pretty much with you on this one -- if someone gave me the choice, I'd carry Mk 262 in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless I was manning a check point and the likeliest threat was VBIED. >>Besides, I don't see why the same technology could not be incorporated into larger caliber (6.5-6.8) that would allow us even better penetrative abilities.<< The problem is width of the round. A 6.5, 6.8, 7.62 or whatever bullet can penetrate body armor, but it takes more energy to push a 6.5mm projectile through body armor than it takes to push a 5.56mm projectile through it. Not a huge deal -- the bigger rounds pack more KE anyway -- with current body armor, but it could be increasingly a bigger deal in the next ten or twenty years. But as you noted above, it's not a pressing deal when it comes to shooting insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. >>I would also think that a heavier ball round that offers superior shockwave damage and fragmentive effect would be more preferrable against personnel: I thought that was the reasoning behind the 77-grain Mk 262.<< Yes, against unarmored personnel (though shockwave doesn't do much -- fragmentation and permanent cavity do the killing, except if the shockwave causes stretching/ripping of the liver and other non-elastic tissues, or if the delivered KE is truly massive, i.e .50 BMG) the heavier bullet is better. The more significant argument (why it was procured for the SPR) is that it retains energy better than 55 or 62 grain ammunition, and so delivers more hurting at long ranges. I've seen guys make consistent hits on steel chest plates with an SPR and Mk 262 at 800 meters -- that's pretty marginal for Mk 262, but significantly more so for M855 or M193, if they will even do that at all with any semblance of accuracy. >>And considering how "private" investigations led to the improvement the Mk 262 offers over the M193, I would certainly think that further evaluation would also yield a much improved AP-type penetrating round, if doctrine suddenly decided it was needed. Here, I think the longer design of the 6.5 Grendel might actually support a cannelured AP design that offers superior fragmenting in addition to excellent penetration. Only the guys and gals expirementing with ammo designs know exactly what can be achieved.<< Certainly. Having looked into it, it is also not a cheap project to get oneself involved in independently. A 6.5 Grendel, 6.8mm Rem SPC*, .50 Beowulf*, etc. upper receiver for an AR will set you back about as much as a brand new 5.56mm AR rifle (* 6.8's can, maybe, be found for a little cheaper, and barebones .50 Beowulf may go a bit below the price of a whole AR-15 . . .). Even worse if you want to go for .499 Leitner-Wise, .458 SOCOM, etc. And that's before you buy the ammo or get very annoyed trying to find it. >>Again, partially, maybe so. But if you read enough of their paragraphs/points, you'll also see they suggest there ARE better alternatives in 5.56mm than the 55 grainer, depending on mission requirements. We're talking about the US military's needs here, not what SHTF/TEOTWAWKI civilians' want.<< Yeah, I'm familiar with their site, but I'd say their arguments basically run in favor of 55 grain or 77 grain for anti-personnel use, 62 grain for more generalized use . . . >>We're so prideful and gloating about how we outfit our fighting men and women with the best planes, best ships, best armor, best handheld electronic battlefield goodies, and best food, so we should be giving them the best bullets also, not keeping a sometimes-questionably-adequate-enough round in production solely on the grounds of cost.<< M193? We only keep it in production to support those few units still using M16A1s, as far as I know. Where I work, we like it when we can get it (since shooting steel with M855 is a problem) but the only time we've gotten it in the last 24 months was when there was a shortage due to the war. Otherwise, it's pretty scarce stuff, really. At least in my experience.

Quote Reply

Nichevo RE:Double Tap & War crimes-PPR 12/31/2005 6:17:18 PM

(sigh) No, I used double-tap for controlled-pair before, and was told double-tap has now apparently been morphed to represent coup-de-grace.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Double Tap & War crimes-PPR 12/31/2005 7:29:31 PM

>>(sigh) No, I used double-tap for controlled-pair before, and was told double-tap has now apparently been morphed to represent coup-de-grace. << Combat marksmanship technical terminology (American version thereof, UK mileage may vary): Controlled Pair -- two rounds fired rapidly, but each with their own sight picture. Useful at most CQC ranges. Double Tap -- Two rounds fired at the same sight picture, without re-indexing sights between rounds. Quicker (even quicker -- controlled pairs are fast), but less accurate. Most likely to be used at *very* close range. "Double tap" meaning to go back through and finish off wounded opponents is, I believe, an adoption of a technical term by people who had no real idea what it meant at the time, except that the SAS used the term, so it must be cool . . . Controlled pairs are trained more usually in combat marksmanship, since they sort of naturally morph into double taps under appropriate situations. Delta and guys playing at their level (to include top level IPSC guys . . .) probably do not conform to that observation.

Quote Reply

doggtag shed some light on this then, someone 12/31/2005 8:11:56 PM

OK, so if controlled pairs are becoming the preferred course of action...why then haven't pop-up ranges during US Army marksmanship qualifications been adjusted to need 2 rounds to drop every target? Is this a CQB-only tactic? And if so, since they are suggesting 1 5.56 won't effectively-enough disable a combatant at close range, what chance then do we really have at disabling him out between 150-300m with a single round?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:shed some light on this then, someone 12/31/2005 8:51:56 PM

>>OK, so if controlled pairs are becoming the preferred course of action...why then haven't pop-up ranges during US Army marksmanship qualifications been adjusted to need 2 rounds to drop every target?<< Yearly weapons qual has very little to do with combat marksmanship. >>Is this a CQB-only tactic? And if so, since they are suggesting 1 5.56 won't effectively-enough disable a combatant at close range, what chance then do we really have at disabling him out between 150-300m with a single round?<< As I have mentioned before -- possibly in this thread -- controlled pairs in CQB are not an artifact of the 5.56mm round, they are an artifact of the CQB environment. When the enemy is in the same room with you, etc., you don't take a chance on a single round, be it 5.56mm, 9mm, .45 ACP, 7.62x51mm, etc. No practical round is guaranteed to drop a target at any range, and when range is sufficiently close that speed is at least as important as accuracy, you put two in the chest -- with any weapon. If we go back to 7.62x51mm tomorrow, or adopt 6.5 Grendel next week, CQB TTPs are not going to change -- two in the chest, fast as you can fire them with a seperate sight picture per bullet. So, in answer to your question, it is false from the start -- "they" are not suggesting one 5.56mm round won't do the job, "they" are suggesting *any* single round from any weapon won't *reliably* do the job at ranges where if your target does not drop, he is not likely to miss you when he gets his shot(s) off. As for disabling targets at 150-300 meter range -- a single bullet in the torso is pretty likely to stop a target from any weapon system that can effectively engage at that range. The observed problem since WW2 has not been dropping targets, it has been hitting them at all. At those ranges you are unlikely to get off two aimed shots with any weapon, if the target has any sort of cover, and if one round does or does not do the job you're risk of getting hit by return fire is radically lower than at CQB ranges.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:shed some light on this then, someone 12/31/2005 9:25:11 PM

You lost me again: at one point, you say contolled pairs are common practice CQB, because one round of ANYTHING might not be sufficient at close range. But then you suggest that, at 150-300m, one round of 5.56mm should be sufficient. OK, since when do bullet actually GAIN energy (velocity-related) after being fired? Most bullets are going slower the further from the gun, not getting faster. Maybe all the tables I've read over the years have been lying to me then, because I was certain that any given round had more energy 10m from the muzzle than it does 200m or more downrange. As for where to shoot someone CQB as opposed to ranged targetting, I would think that, if you are holding your weapon tight to your body in the ready-fire position during room-clearing, you could pull off cranial shots much easier: a guaranteed drop. Morally and ethically unsound, maybe. But the idea is to remove your adversary's ability to wage war, not patch up his wounded so they may come back to shoot you weeks or months later. As for this whole controlled pairs vs double tap argument: I still personally consider the former to be the politically-correct way to say the latter. Considering the fragmenting effect that some service 5.56mm ammo offers (via that website), my guess is that it was determined one round may not cause sufficient-enough cavitation/fragmenting to kill, so a second shot would put him out of his misery. And besides, judging by how many fragments might well be imbedded in him from even one bullet, I'd think he may be un-necessarily suffering if you let him lie there with only one wound tearing open his chest or abdomen. So as I see it then, controlled double tapping is actually being more humane. Maybe the next incarnation then of the M16/M4 weapons should be eliminating the 3-round burst feature and giving the weapon either single shot operation (for when firing those long range bullets that gain velocity and energy the further away they get and can sufficiently stop someone with 1 round at 150-300m), or the 2-rd "controlled pair" selection, allowing very rapid double shots with just one pull of the trigger for those CQB ops where the bullets haven't quite reached the apex of their energy yet just after being fired, so two are required instead of one. Hell, maybe we should make this modification to military pistols, also, since you suggest controlled pairs at close range is necessary irregardless of caliber. So then, should an M1 with its 120mm gun fire 2 sabots in rapid succession if his target is under 500m, yet just rely on one if the enemy MBT is further away? Sorry, but I ain't buying it. I just don't see that it takes more energy to drop someone up close than it does to kill someone further away.

Quote Reply

shek RE:shed some light on this then, someone 12/31/2005 9:42:14 PM

DT, Controlled pairs are "controlled." The lexicon serves to reinforce that you don't just squeeze the trigger twice, but that you acquire the target, fire a round, reacquire the target, and fire the second round. A 2 round burst sear would not be a controlled pair, but a 2 round burst. Because of the short range, you don't have to be concerned with your breathing putting your round off target (remember, breathing will typically affect the vertical placement of your shot, meaning that in CQM an appropriately aimed shot will hit the trachea/spinal cord or brain worst case instead of the heart/spinal cord), meaning that the controlled pair will be fired very close together for a trained soldier who has the muscle memory. In contrast to a 150-200m shot, your breathing pattern can greatly affect your ability to put both rounds in the exact same spot, meaning that you will have to wait until you are at your natural breathing pause point to be most effective with your shot.

Quote Reply

OldGrunt RE:shed some light on this then, someone 12/31/2005 10:30:02 PM

DT, All ballistics effects aside, it comes down to the reality that a wounded enemy combatant at 10 feet is an infinitely greater threat than the same wounded enemy combatant at 150m. You can finish off the guy at 150m later, if he is still acting as a combatant. There probably isn't going to be a later for you with the guy at 10 feet.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:shed some light on this then, someone 1/1/2006 12:32:54 AM

>>at one point, you say contolled pairs are common practice CQB, because one round of ANYTHING might not be sufficient at close range. But then you suggest that, at 150-300m, one round of 5.56mm should be sufficient.<< Exactly. It is not that complicated. Nothing changes about the bullet, no quantum mechanics are required to understand it. All it comes down to is margin of error. At 10 meters a single 5.56mm round (or most anything else) is pretty likely to drop a guy if you put in into his chest. But, if it does not the odds are very good that you're going to get shot in return if he's holding an AKM when you shoot him. Guys can miss at 10 meters -- cops and criminals do it every day -- but its pretty hard to do compared to missing at 300 meters. Particularly when Achmed and his AKM are probably going for the "full auto & faith in Allah" school of non-precision marksmanship. So you drill two quick rounds into his chest -- and repeat if necessary (and since we don't clear rooms alone, odds are pretty good the other guys in your stack are putting controlled pairs into the guy as well . . .). Surrendering the initiative in CQB is an excellent way to get killed. At 300 hundred meters a round through the chest is still likely to do the job. But if it does not, the odds of catching a round in return are extremely low compared to 10 meters (as are the odds of getting off a second aimed shot at most targets in most environments anyway . . .). The odds of a guy bleeding out before he can get to a position where he can bring effective return fire against you after you hit him are much better than at 10 meters. The odds of a guy thinking better of the whole thing and taking his newly shot chest on back to the house or cave or whatever are infinitely better than at 10 meters. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. >>As for where to shoot someone CQB as opposed to ranged targetting, I would think that, if you are holding your weapon tight to your body in the ready-fire position during room-clearing, you could pull off cranial shots much easier: a guaranteed drop. Morally and ethically unsound, maybe. But the idea is to remove your adversary's ability to wage war, not patch up his wounded so they may come back to shoot you weeks or months later.<< First, killing the enemy when he presents a threat has never been regarded as morally or ethically unsound in the US military I'm familiar with. Certainly such is not an issue in CQB which is, at the end of the day, about going into a building and selectively killing people who are enemies and not killing non-combatants, etc. If some guy happens to end up wounded, US troops will of course treat him, but shootouts conducted with assault rifles at ranges inside 10 meters do not tend to produce a lot of wounded. Second, head shots are, obviously, more likely to be fatal, but they are a lower percentage shot -- which means higher chance of missing, and slower target acquisition. CQB is about getting the first rounds off and getting the first rounds into the target ("slow is smooth, smooth is fast" etc) -- missing a guy's head is infinitely less lethal than shooting him in the chest. Two aimed shots into the chest is the optimum target and optimum engagement method to kill or incapacitate the enemy as reliably and fast as humanly possible. But, if the controlled pair does not do the job, we then go to a failure drill which is usually trained as either a shot to the head or the pelvis . . . >>Maybe the next incarnation then of the M16/M4 weapons should be eliminating the 3-round burst feature and giving the weapon either single shot operation (for when firing those long range bullets that gain velocity and energy the further away they get and can sufficiently stop someone with 1 round at 150-300m), or the 2-rd "controlled pair" selection, allowing very rapid double shots with just one pull of the trigger for those CQB ops where the bullets haven't quite reached the apex of their energy yet just after being fired, so two are required instead of one.<< Like Shek said, a two round burst is not a controlled pair. CQB is about applying lethal force selectively, but overwhelmingly when it is called for. Two round burst, three round bursts, full auto -- not precise, not sufficiently controlled. Semi-auto, aimed fire, at identified threats is how it is done. There's no need to tweak burst settings to accomplish that -- one really does not need burst or full auto at all. >>Hell, maybe we should make this modification to military pistols, also, since you suggest controlled pairs at close range is necessary irregardless of caliber.<< Again, a two round burst is not a controlled pair. We presently teach controlled pairs with pistols during combat marksmanship training. >>So then, should an M1 with its 120mm gun fire 2 sabots in rapid succession if his target is under 500m, yet just rely on one if the enemy MBT is further away?<< Yawn. If you don't get it, it's okay, you don't get it. It sounds like it is something you'll never have to worry about personally anyway. >>Sorry, but I ain't buying it. I just don't see that it takes more energy to drop someone up close than it does to kill someone further away.<< As I noted above, it does not. It's a question of odds, which should be simple enough to understand, I would think . . .

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

	News As History - November 21, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us