Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
For those interested in whats going on in the A-Stan
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lone Wolf &#039;49" data-source="post: 1013382" data-attributes="member: 3016"><p>John Farnam wrote this:</p><p></p><p> 14 Feb 10</p><p></p><p>Are we finally turning the page?</p><p></p><p>Recently, I've been forwarded a number of scholarly articles from </p><p>prestigious military journals, strongly critical of the current 5.56mm cartridge </p><p>for which our military rifles are chambered. Of course, they are all </p><p>gratuitously wordy, take forever to finally get to the point, and are filled with</p><p>interminable (but colorful) charts and graphs. Anything less, and I'm sure</p><p>they would never have been allowed to rear their heads!</p><p></p><p>The interesting point is that they all, at long last, unite in concluding </p><p>the 5.56X45 cartridge, in every configuration attempted, unequivocally lacks</p><p> adequate (1) range, and (2) penetration for the requirements of a</p><p>main-battle, infantry rifle, beyond doubt. Of course, this has all been common </p><p>knowledge for forty years!</p><p></p><p>But, until now, this well-known fact has been mentioned only in nervous, </p><p>paranoid whispers, at least among those concerned with their next promotion.</p><p> No frank nor open discussion has even been permitted (except among those</p><p>of us outside the System), despite innumerable, indisputably accurate</p><p>reports from the field of the cartridge's endemic inadequacy. </p><p></p><p>This is, of course, ever the way big institutions operate, and always </p><p>will. Yes, it is encouraging to see this forty-year-old procurement mistake</p><p>finally out in the open. Most of the people, including former Secretary of</p><p>Defense Robert MacNamara, who foisted this fraud upon the military are now lo</p><p>ng-since dead, so we are now down to the last few self-righteous egos that</p><p>need defending.</p><p></p><p>The 6.8mm may yet see the light of day, in our lifetimes!</p><p></p><p>/John</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lone Wolf '49, post: 1013382, member: 3016"] John Farnam wrote this: 14 Feb 10 Are we finally turning the page? Recently, I've been forwarded a number of scholarly articles from prestigious military journals, strongly critical of the current 5.56mm cartridge for which our military rifles are chambered. Of course, they are all gratuitously wordy, take forever to finally get to the point, and are filled with interminable (but colorful) charts and graphs. Anything less, and I'm sure they would never have been allowed to rear their heads! The interesting point is that they all, at long last, unite in concluding the 5.56X45 cartridge, in every configuration attempted, unequivocally lacks adequate (1) range, and (2) penetration for the requirements of a main-battle, infantry rifle, beyond doubt. Of course, this has all been common knowledge for forty years! But, until now, this well-known fact has been mentioned only in nervous, paranoid whispers, at least among those concerned with their next promotion. No frank nor open discussion has even been permitted (except among those of us outside the System), despite innumerable, indisputably accurate reports from the field of the cartridge's endemic inadequacy. This is, of course, ever the way big institutions operate, and always will. Yes, it is encouraging to see this forty-year-old procurement mistake finally out in the open. Most of the people, including former Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara, who foisted this fraud upon the military are now lo ng-since dead, so we are now down to the last few self-righteous egos that need defending. The 6.8mm may yet see the light of day, in our lifetimes! /John [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
For those interested in whats going on in the A-Stan
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom