PDA

View Full Version : Marine with a bird's eye view of Iraq


WillBrink
November 15th 05, 03:08 PM
The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and
Interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my
son Jordan, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is
well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq
for a second tour in early 06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4
more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward
to returning to Iraq.

Jordan spent 7 months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi. Aka: Fort
Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me
about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info
which may be of interest to you.
Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a
Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions:

1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the
talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan
says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The
M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter,
but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the
various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate
the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock
structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.

Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level
of opiate use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light
machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of ****.

Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial
disassembly. (that's fun in the middle of a firefight).



3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in
desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of

handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story

on the 9mm:

Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently
for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine
gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon
that
was!!).

Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.

Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are

being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62
round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma
deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate
fight

stopper, puts their dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted

weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out
there.

Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their
Hands on one.With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put
'em down with

a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the
pistol

work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old
government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly
in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include
lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very
reliable in the
sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular
range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently
to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded
enemy Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in
300 win mag.Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance.
Snipers have
been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine
sniper on his third tour
in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record
for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6
lbs.

and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even
will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as **** to wear,
almost unbearable in the
summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now
goes for head shots whenever possible. All the bull**** about the "old"
body
armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter.
The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any
difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up.
Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the
night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More

and more enemy being whacked at
night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the
videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal
lights are Surefire's, and the troops love 'em. Invaluable for
night urban operations. Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck
lanyard and loved it.

I can't help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and

ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our
technology,

it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!! The

infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is
given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

1) Mostly AK47's The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in

the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.

PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective.
Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like ****. Undisciplined "spray and
pray" type fire.

However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons,

especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again)

Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the
Marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are
apparently told in Jihad
school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be
easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness.
Let's just say they
know better now.

2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys.

Simple, reliable and as common as dog****. The enemy responded to
our up-armored humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at
point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old
Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot
found in Jordan's area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2
or 3 155mm artillery

shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone,
and the explosions
are enormous. You're not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving
is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately,
they are
much more sophisticated "shape charges"

(Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of
the ready made IED's are supplied by Iran, who is also providing
terrorists (Hezbollah
types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics.

That's why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their
concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges
in Styrofoam containers spray
painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads.
We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are
Unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The soviet era 122mm
rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of
Jordan's NCO's lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of
damage "inside the wire".Jordan's base was hit almost daily his entire
time there by mortar and rocket
fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue
(It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The
enemy mortar teams would jump out of
vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of
seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is

by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They
use handheld GPS units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead
views of our
positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent.

Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night
Vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the
captured

GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?:

Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They
operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are
mostly "foreigners",
non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the

Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of

course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and
then travel down the"rat line" which is the trail of towns along
the Euphrates River
that we've been hitting hard for the last few months.

Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as
suicide bombers or in "sacrifice squads". Most, however, are hard
core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah,
Hamas etc.) These are
the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads
off.
The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most
ruthless and the best
fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the
Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired
(and
led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shiia have been very adept at
infiltrating the
Iraqi local govt.'s, the police forces and the Army. The have had a
massive spy
And agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80's.
Most

of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:

When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses
kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges

were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will
literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams
in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing Ak's and
RPG's directly at our bases just to probe the defenses.

They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240
above).Jordan's base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a
tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they
think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and
that's the end of that more
often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo's
(Allah's Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down
to a
science.The fast mover's, mostly Marine F-18's, are taking an ever
increasing toll
on the enemy.When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships
and AC-130
Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire,
Especially at night.

Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all.

Fun fact: The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50
thousand.

That is why we're seeing less and less infantry attacks and more
IED, suicide bomber ****. The new strategy is simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian
non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid
civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and
(especially) Mosques are locations where
they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when
engaged.They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian
casualties. They
will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed

to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt.
Kidnapping of family members (especially
children) is common to influence people they are trying to
influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics,
tribal
leaders, etc.).

The first thing our guys are told is "don't get captured". They
know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the
internet.

Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live
American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise
don't give a **** about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were
actually
kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our
guys, every
fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqi's are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth
a ****. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is
hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that
Zarqawi's use of suicide
bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious
tactical
mistake.Many Iraqi's were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the
Army
and he police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led
to an
exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi's are sick of
the insurgent attacks against civilians.

The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not
only believe they are winning, but that they are winning
decisively. They are stunned
and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they
almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters
are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a
rate of 20-1 and then see **** like"Are
we losing in Iraq" on TV and the print media. For the most part,
they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership.
Bottom line though,
and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the
final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because

there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with
Iran and Syria.
The Iranians and the Syrians just cant stand the thought of Iraq being
an American
Ally (with,of course, permanent US bases there).

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David Cohen
November 15th 05, 05:25 PM
"WillBrink" > wrote

> The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
<snip very interesting post>

The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
new is not necessarily better.

No mention of knives?

David

WillBrink
November 15th 05, 07:21 PM
In article >,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "WillBrink" > wrote
>
> > The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
> <snip very interesting post>
>
> The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising.

Agreed.

> When will "they" ever learn:
> new is not necessarily better.

Rumor has it the military has put in an order for a bunch of 1911s and
they have put money into upgrading the m14 with better stocks, optics,
etc, so "they" seem to be at least trying to catch up.

>
> No mention of knives?

Does not appear so.

>
> David
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lee Michaels
November 15th 05, 08:46 PM
"David Cohen" wrote
>
> "WillBrink" > wrote
>
>> The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
> <snip very interesting post>
>
> The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
> new is not necessarily better.
>
I saw this article today. It seconds some of the comments made here.

Little Bullets Lose Respect
November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army's cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement
for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than
anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic
weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to
shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to
better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for
day and night use. It's much more effective to fire less often, if you have
troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first
shot. Most American troops can.

Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you
often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as
effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have
plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240
medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles,
it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of
1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and
distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work
on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the
heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block
walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops
require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.

In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The
question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round,
but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back.
There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the
lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be
adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver.
Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.

The other big complaint about the M16 is it's sensitivity to fine dust, as
found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the
rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to
be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that
most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with
new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the "dust
sensitivity" problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.

A decision on the army's new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather
than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a
lot of Internet noise over the issue.

JMW
November 15th 05, 09:01 PM
David Cohen wrote:
> "WillBrink" > wrote
>
> > The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
> <snip very interesting post>
>
> The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
> new is not necessarily better.

It was nice to hear praise for the Mossberg 590.

Actually, it was interesting to read the whole thing. I really liked
"Allah's Waiting Room."

WillBrink
November 15th 05, 09:26 PM
In article om>,
"JMW" > wrote:

> David Cohen wrote:
> > "WillBrink" > wrote
> >
> > > The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
> > <snip very interesting post>
> >
> > The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
> > new is not necessarily better.
>
> It was nice to hear praise for the Mossberg 590.
>
> Actually, it was interesting to read the whole thing. I really liked
> "Allah's Waiting Room."


I want a .50 BMG for home defense! It's interesting reading agreed.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
November 15th 05, 09:35 PM
In article >,
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:

>
> In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The
> question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round,
> but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back.
> There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the
> lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be
> adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver.
> Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.

Seems it would save us huge amounts of $$$ and time to go with the 6.8
(which gets rave reviews) in an M16 configuration then to change to the
XM8 system, but that makes too much sense. Major issue is that 5.56 is
it's the NATO standard everyone uses and produces.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Jason Earl
November 15th 05, 09:46 PM
WillBrink > writes:

>
> The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.

<snip>

Good read, thanks.

Jason Earl
November 15th 05, 09:53 PM
WillBrink > writes:

> In article >,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>>
>> In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier
>> round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting
>> with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size
>> 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use
>> the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm
>> round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using
>> all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be
>> that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
>
> Seems it would save us huge amounts of $$$ and time to go with the
> 6.8 (which gets rave reviews) in an M16 configuration then to change
> to the XM8 system, but that makes too much sense. Major issue is
> that 5.56 is it's the NATO standard everyone uses and produces.

Which simply means that all of NATO is wrong. 5.56 is a great round
for hunting unarmed and unarmored coyotes, but it doesn't appear to be
working out well in combat situations.

Jason

Hank
November 15th 05, 11:21 PM
WillBrink wrote:

> Who are the bad guys?:

bu$h, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and most repugs
in Congress.

> Bad Guy Tactics:

Lie and then lie some more. Tell some more lies. Bomb civilians,
use banned chemical weapons, torture innocent POWs, then lie
about it. Get thousands of young U.S. soldiers killed and/or
crippled over lies and greed, then make life miserable for them
when they come home broken. Tell some more lies. Disgrace the
United States of America.
HTH


-


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Lee Michaels
November 16th 05, 12:07 AM
"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>>
>> In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round.
>> The
>> question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm
>> round,
>> but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought
>> back.
>> There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the
>> lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly
>> be
>> adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and
>> receiver.
>> Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
>
> Seems it would save us huge amounts of $$$ and time to go with the 6.8
> (which gets rave reviews) in an M16 configuration then to change to the
> XM8 system, but that makes too much sense. Major issue is that 5.56 is
> it's the NATO standard everyone uses and produces.
>
The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.

We need something that doesn't jam or require five hours a day to keep it
functional.

And has a big enough slug to knock somebody down.

JMW
November 16th 05, 12:20 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>"WillBrink" > wrote:
>>
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round.
>>> The
>>> question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm
>>> round,
>>> but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought
>>> back.
>>> There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the
>>> lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly
>>> be
>>> adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and
>>> receiver.
>>> Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
>>
>> Seems it would save us huge amounts of $$$ and time to go with the 6.8
>> (which gets rave reviews) in an M16 configuration then to change to the
>> XM8 system, but that makes too much sense. Major issue is that 5.56 is
>> it's the NATO standard everyone uses and produces.
>>
>The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.
>
>We need something that doesn't jam or require five hours a day to keep it
>functional.

Kalashnikov understood that.

John Hanson
November 16th 05, 01:42 AM
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:07:59 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round.
>>> The
>>> question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm
>>> round,
>>> but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought
>>> back.
>>> There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the
>>> lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly
>>> be
>>> adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and
>>> receiver.
>>> Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
>>
>> Seems it would save us huge amounts of $$$ and time to go with the 6.8
>> (which gets rave reviews) in an M16 configuration then to change to the
>> XM8 system, but that makes too much sense. Major issue is that 5.56 is
>> it's the NATO standard everyone uses and produces.
>>
>The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.

Actually, it isn't. The problem with the M16 is that it has real
tight tolerances, which is a great characteristic of rifle used in
shooting competitions but not in a dirty, dusty combat environment.

>
>We need something that doesn't jam or require five hours a day to keep it
>functional.

Which was the nice feature of the Kalashnikov design. You might not
be able to shoot dimes at 300 yards with it but you can shoot half
dollars at 100 yards. This is due to its "looseness" which also aids
in its reliability.

>
>And has a big enough slug to knock somebody down.
>
I'm in favor of big holes. I also think that some of new short
magnums would be ideal as a military round. The cartridges are fairly
light in the .270 and 7MM rounds which would allow the common soldier
to carry more ammo than the 7.62 (.308). They also pack way more of a
punch in terms of energy than the 5.56 (.223) round. Another big plus
is that they work in a short action receiver which is ALWAYS better in
an automatic rifle.

Fraser Johnston
November 16th 05, 06:33 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "WillBrink" > wrote
>
>> The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
> <snip very interesting post>
>
> The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
> new is not necessarily better.
>
> No mention of knives?

If they get close enough to use knives things have gone seriously seriously
wrong.

Fraser

David Cohen
November 16th 05, 07:06 AM
"Fraser Johnston" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote
>> "WillBrink" > wrote
>>
>>> The note below is from a former Marine Gunny.
>> <snip very interesting post>
>>
>> The thumbs up weapons are SO not surprising. When will "they" ever learn:
>> new is not necessarily better.
>>
>> No mention of knives?
>
> If they get close enough to use knives things have gone seriously
> seriously wrong.

Knives serve nearly infinite purpose other than combat.

And, as in all wars through time, Murphy accompanies the troops.

David

WillBrink
November 16th 05, 02:43 PM
In article >, Hank >
wrote:

> WillBrink wrote:

>
> > Bad Guy Tactics:
>
> Lie and then lie some more.

Yes, an internet idiot like you knows far more then the guy actually
there doing the fighing. Good work as always "Hank"

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
November 16th 05, 02:59 PM
In article >,
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:


> >
> The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.

The tight tolerances of the M16 requires greater care over other
designs. Also, one weak area of the design is the gas system which
vents dirty gas into the works. I was just reading an article about a
company that has supposedly fixed that issue and the gun can go much
longer time between cleanings with increased reliability. Finally, it
appears the type of lubrication you use in such environments can make a
big difference. Some of the guys I spoke to are using a dry lube which
does not attract dust and they claimed far fewer problems using this
lube.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
November 16th 05, 03:00 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:07:59 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

> >
> I'm in favor of big holes.

Do you tend to date women who have had a few kids then?

> I also think that some of new short
> magnums would be ideal as a military round. The cartridges are fairly
> light in the .270 and 7MM rounds which would allow the common soldier
> to carry more ammo than the 7.62 (.308). They also pack way more of a
> punch in terms of energy than the 5.56 (.223) round. Another big plus
> is that they work in a short action receiver which is ALWAYS better in
> an automatic rifle.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John
November 16th 05, 03:48 PM
"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:07:59 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> > >
> > I'm in favor of big holes.
>
> Do you tend to date women who have had a few kids then?

At least you know they ****.

Davids son
November 16th 05, 04:45 PM
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:48:46 GMT, "John"
> wrote:

>At least you know they ****.

The real shocker is, that he hasn't admitted he's gay yet.

WillBrink
November 16th 05, 09:30 PM
In article >,
"John" > wrote:

> "WillBrink" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:07:59 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> > > >
> > > I'm in favor of big holes.
> >
> > Do you tend to date women who have had a few kids then?
>
> At least you know they ****.

Well there is that!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Hank
November 16th 05, 10:47 PM
WillBrink wrote:
> Hank > wrote:

>>WillBrink wrote:

>>> Bad Guy Tactics:

>> Lie and then lie some more.

> Yes, an internet idiot like you knows far more then the
> guy actually there doing the fighing.

bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all cowardly draft dodgers
who never did any fighting. They're also proven liars,
torturers, war criminals, and child butchering terrorists.

> Good work as always "Hank"

Thanks. I know.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111005K.shtml


An Army Ready to Snap
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times

Thursday 10 November 2005

Have you heard what's been happening to the military?

Most people have heard that more than 2,000 American G.I.'s have
been killed in the nonstop meat grinder of Iraq. There was a flurry of
stories about that grim milestone in the last week of October. (Since
then the official number of American deaths has jumped to at least
2,055, and it continues to climb steadily.)

More than 15,000 have been wounded in action.

But the problems of the military go far beyond the casualty figures
coming out of the war zone. The Army, for example, has been stretched
so taut since the Sept. 11 attacks, especially by the fiasco in Iraq,
that it's become like a rubber band that may snap at any moment.

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld convinced themselves that they
could win the war in Iraq on the cheap. They never sent enough troops
to do the job. Now the burden of trying to fight a long and bitter war
with too few troops is taking a terrible toll on the men and women in
uniform.

Last December, the top general in the Army Reserve warned that his
organization was "rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force" because
of the Pentagon's "dysfunctional" policies and demands placed on the
Reserve by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

As one of my colleagues at The Times, David Unger of the editorial
board, wrote, "The Army's commitments have dangerously and rapidly
expanded, while recruitment has plunged."

Soldiers are being sent into the crucible of Iraq for three and
even four tours, a form of Russian roulette that is unconscionable.

"They feel like they're the only ones sacrificing," said Paul
Rieckhoff, a former Army lieutenant who served in Iraq and is now the
executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for service
members and veterans.

"They're starting to look around and say, 'You know, it's me and my
buddies over and over again, and everybody else is living life
uninterrupted.' "

When I asked Mr. Rieckhoff what he thought was happening with the
Army, he replied, "The wheels are coming off."

The Washington Post, in a lengthy article last week, noted:

"As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the
ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic
data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on
economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may
outweigh the risks of going to war."

For those already in the Army, the price being paid - apart from
the physical toll of the killed and wounded - is high indeed.

Divorce rates have gone way up, nearly doubling over the past four
years. Long deployments - and, especially, repeated deployments - can
take a vicious toll on personal relationships.

Chaplains, psychologists and others have long been aware of the
many dangerous factors that accompany wartime deployment: loneliness,
financial problems, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, the problems faced by the parent left at home to care
for children, the enormous problem of adjusting to the devastation of
wartime injuries, and so on.

The Army is not just fighting a ruthless insurgency in Iraq. It's
fighting a rear-guard action against these noncombat, guerrilla-like
conditions that threaten its own viability.

There are reasons why parents all across America are telling their
children to run the other way when military recruiters come to call.
There are reasons why so many lieutenants and captains, fine young men
and women, are heading toward the exit doors at the first opportunity.

A captain who is on active duty, and therefore asked not to be
identified by name, told me yesterday:

"The only reason I stayed in the Army was because one colonel
convinced me to do it. Other than that, I would have walked.
Basically, these guys who are leaving have their high-powered
educations. Some are from West Point. They've done their five years.
Why should they stay and go back to Iraq and die in a war that's just
going to keep on going?"

Beyond that, he said, "Guys are not going to stay in the Army when
their wives are leaving them."

From the perspective of the troops, he said, the situation in Iraq
is perverse.

He could find no upside. "You go to war," he said, "and you could
lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win.
The soldiers don't win."




-


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

WillBrink
November 17th 05, 03:00 PM
In article >, Hank >
wrote:

> WillBrink wrote:
> > Hank > wrote:
>
> >>WillBrink wrote:
>
> >>> Bad Guy Tactics:
>
> >> Lie and then lie some more.
>
> > Yes, an internet idiot like you knows far more then the
> > guy actually there doing the fighing.
>
> bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all cowardly draft dodgers
> who never did any fighting.

Asshole, what does that have to do with this article from a person that
IS DOING THE FIGHTING? Not a thing, that's what

> They're also proven liars,
> torturers, war criminals, and child butchering terrorists.

Asshole, to re state, what does that have to do with this article from a
marine on the ground DOING THE FIGHTING? Where do the words "bush,
Cheney, and Rumsfeld" appear in this article? No place, that's where.

>
> > Good work as always "Hank"
>
> Thanks. I know.

You're a fat pasty pussy of a boy who needs to get a life.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John
November 17th 05, 03:45 PM
"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.
>
> The tight tolerances of the M16 requires greater care over other
> designs. Also, one weak area of the design is the gas system which
> vents dirty gas into the works. I was just reading an article about a
> company that has supposedly fixed that issue and the gun can go much
> longer time between cleanings with increased reliability. Finally, it
> appears the type of lubrication you use in such environments can make a
> big difference. Some of the guys I spoke to are using a dry lube which
> does not attract dust and they claimed far fewer problems using this
> lube.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001944.html

JMW
November 17th 05, 06:24 PM
WillBrink > wrote:

>In article >, Hank >
>wrote:
>
>> WillBrink wrote:
>> > Hank > wrote:
>>
>> >>WillBrink wrote:
>>
>> >>> Bad Guy Tactics:
>>
>> >> Lie and then lie some more.
>>
>> > Yes, an internet idiot like you knows far more then the
>> > guy actually there doing the fighing.
>>
>> bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all cowardly draft dodgers
>> who never did any fighting.
>
>Asshole, what does that have to do with this article from a person that
>IS DOING THE FIGHTING? Not a thing, that's what
>
>> They're also proven liars,
>> torturers, war criminals, and child butchering terrorists.
>
>Asshole, to re state, what does that have to do with this article from a
>marine on the ground DOING THE FIGHTING? Where do the words "bush,
>Cheney, and Rumsfeld" appear in this article? No place, that's where.
>
>>
>> > Good work as always "Hank"
>>
>> Thanks. I know.
>
>You're a fat pasty pussy of a boy who needs to get a life.

That's not true, Will.

He's a skinny pasty pussy of a boy who needs to get a life.

BTW, I was doing little research on OCPD (obsessive-compulsive
personality disorder, *not* the same as OCD), and I think they've got
Hank's number. It's worth Googling.

Hank
November 18th 05, 02:56 AM
WillBrink wrote:
> Hank > wrote:

>> bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all cowardly draft dodgers
>>who never did any fighting.

> Asshole, what does that have to do with this article from a
> person that IS DOING THE FIGHTING? Not a thing, that's what

**** for brains, bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld sent them
there.

>>They're also proven liars,
>>torturers, war criminals, and child butchering terrorists.

> Asshole, to re state, what does that have to do with this article
> from a marine on the ground DOING THE FIGHTING?

Dumbass, bu$h put them on the ground in Iraq to DO THE
FIGHTING.

> You're a fat pasty pussy of a boy who needs to get a life.

Your many critics aren't joking when they say you're
stupid, are they? <chuckle>


-


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search

"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incomptence.

"The tools that enable Cuba save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr

Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

WillBrink
November 18th 05, 02:20 PM
In article >,
Hank > wrote:

> WillBrink wrote:
> > Hank > wrote:
>
> >> bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are all cowardly draft dodgers
> >>who never did any fighting.
>
> > Asshole, what does that have to do with this article from a
> > person that IS DOING THE FIGHTING? Not a thing, that's what
>
> **** for brains, bu$h, Cheney, and Rumsfeld sent them
> there.

And what does that have to do with the marines comments asshole?
Nothing, that's what.

>
> >>They're also proven liars,
> >>torturers, war criminals, and child butchering terrorists.
>
> > Asshole, to re state, what does that have to do with this article
> > from a marine on the ground DOING THE FIGHTING?
>
> Dumbass, bu$h put them on the ground in Iraq to DO THE
> FIGHTING.

So what asshole? Your point?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

TheBillRodgers
November 18th 05, 11:55 PM
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:34:33 GMT, lars > wrote:

> with cold i mean subzero under 32 F

Your wifes pussy?

John Hanson
November 19th 05, 04:38 AM
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:34:33 GMT, lars > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>WillBrink wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The M16 configuration is a dust magnet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The tight tolerances of the M16 requires greater care over other
>>designs. Also, one weak area of the design is the gas system which
>>vents dirty gas into the works. I was just reading an article about a
>>company that has supposedly fixed that issue and the gun can go much
>>longer time between cleanings with increased reliability. Finally, it
>>appears the type of lubrication you use in such environments can make a
>>big difference. Some of the guys I spoke to are using a dry lube which
>>does not attract dust and they claimed far fewer problems using this
>>lube.
>>
>>
>>
>i belive recoil reloading is less sensitive to dust and such, one
>thing i learned during military service when its cold dont lube use
>it dry with cold i mean subzero under 32 F

Yes, very true. Also, coat the outer metal parts of a gun liberally
with oil. It's really helps with rust and a lot of gun owners get
that "remove all the oil" syndrome in their heads this time of year.