Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ICANHITHIMMAN" data-source="post: 469574" data-attributes="member: 10414"><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Somehow I just don't see the replacement of the 5.56NATO. I could see new bullet designs and a shift in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention in relation to small arms projectiles.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">If BIG ARMY could do what SOCOMS JAG did and declare hollow points and soft nose bullets ok for use by the rest of us, lethality of the 5.56 and 9mm platforms would go up astronomically. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">(This is not verbatim just what I could remember off the top of my head)</span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">The Geneva Conventions says that a small arms projectile will not cause unreasonable pain and suffering. SOCOMs JAG interpreted this as, what constitutes unreasonable pain and suffering when you trying to kill someone? </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Hopefully advanced marksmanship training will be more accessible to a broader range of soldiers in the future. This paired with more lethal rounds that provide greater effect on target. If standard issue was the Mk262 (77g SMK) round that would be a great starting point.</span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ICANHITHIMMAN, post: 469574, member: 10414"] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Somehow I just don’t see the replacement of the 5.56NATO. I could see new bullet designs and a shift in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention in relation to small arms projectiles.[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]If BIG ARMY could do what SOCOMS JAG did and declare hollow points and soft nose bullets ok for use by the rest of us, lethality of the 5.56 and 9mm platforms would go up astronomically. [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana](This is not verbatim just what I could remember off the top of my head)[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]The Geneva Conventions says that a small arms projectile will not cause unreasonable pain and suffering. SOCOMs JAG interpreted this as, what constitutes unreasonable pain and suffering when you trying to kill someone? [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Hopefully advanced marksmanship training will be more accessible to a broader range of soldiers in the future. This paired with more lethal rounds that provide greater effect on target. If standard issue was the Mk262 (77g SMK) round that would be a great starting point.[/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16
Top