Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
UFC on Spike
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Women
Non-Bullet Proof Vests
BAE firm in body armour pay-out
A subsidiary of UK defence giant BAE Systems has agreed to pay a $30m (£17m) settlement to the US government in a case about defective body armour.
Armor Holdings is also co-operating with a wider US probe into the body armour industry's use of a material that the US claims degrades over time.
But the company denies it made and sold bullet-proof vests while knowing the material, Zylon, was unsuitable.
US police forces and other emergency services have bought vests using Zylon.
The United States Department of Justice had accused Armor Holdings of knowingly making and selling bullet-proof vests despite having information that a key material used in their manufacture was unsuitable.
In a statement on its website, the department welcomed the settlement and agreement of co-operation.
Gregory Katsas, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division, said: "The Justice department will not tolerate its first responders wearing defective bullet-proof vests.
"This settlement will help ensure that first responders receive the highest quality ballistic protection."
Damn thats some bullshit right there. I've seen how the government will pay for substandard equipment but getting down right dangerous stuff is pretty messed up. This isn't the only problem we've had with vests... is the Dragon Skin bullet proof debacle.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Hitler what a retard
1. Land War in Asia
2. Changed name from highly catchy 'Schickelgruber' to boring 'Hitler'
3. Leaving his little mustache: not growing a friendly Abe Lincoln beard to instill trust among subjects
4. Not buying lifts for his shoes
5. Failure to exploit Me 262 Messerschmidt
6. Failure to exploit Eva Braun
7. Chose swastika as party symbol rather than the daisy
8. Chose Josef Goebels rather than Marlene Dietrich to promote Nazi image
9. Chose "Deutschland Uber Alles" over "Let's All Be There" as party slogan
10. Lost the Ark to Indiana Jones
11. Chose unfashionable blacks and browns rather than trendy plaids and stripes as uniform colors for SS & SA
12. Referring to Stalin as "that old Georgian fat back"
13. Indiscriminate use of V-2 rockets for public fireworks displays
14. Free beer in munitions plants
15. Lisp never corrected
16. Bad toupe
17. Refused to undergo nostril reduction surgery
18. Failed to conquer strategically important Comoros Islands
19. Fell asleep in staff meetings
20. Chose Italy as ally
21. Got involved with a Sicilian when death was on the line
22. Made pass at Eleanor Roosevelt during 1936 Olympics
23. Built heliport on top of new Reichstag building which looked remarkably like a bullseye from the air
24. Always got Churchill out of bed for conference calls
25. Never had fireside mass rallies
26. Told Einstein he had a stupid name
27. Used SS instead of LAPD
28. Admired Napoleon's strategy
29. Strong fondness for saurkraut and beans made General Staff avoid him constantly
30. In last days, chose to hide in bunker rather than ask U.S. for a little country place in Hawaii
31. Nightmare involving Pillsbury Doughboy haunted him constantly with war advice
32. Major theme in speeches -- "liebensraum, or "living room" -- widely misperceived as call for domestic architectural reform
33. Failed to revoke Rudolph Hess's pilot licence.
34. Pissed off Jesse Owens at 1936 Olympics
35. Didn't put his brother Billy in the concentration camps. When word got out that Billy was just a beer guzzling fat guy in a small town in Bavaria who grew peanuts it was bad P.R. for Der Fuhrer
36. Passed up Finish "tanks for snowshoes" offer before invasion of USSR
37. Drank to much at Beer Hall Putsch
38. Spent jail time planning how to conquer the world instead of his own escape.
39. Forgot to write "Dear Joey" letter to Stalin before invasion of Poland
40. Blew nose on Operation Barbarossa maps, forcing extemporaneous invasion of Soviet Union
41. Took no steps to keep Neville Chamberline in power
42. Chose the Tirpitz for that weekend of love with Eva in the Fjords
43. Frequently mistaken for Charlie Chaplin due to mustache; undermined credibility (as when he threatened to invade Poland, everyone waited for the punchline)
44. Came off as poor loser when "Triumph of the Will" failed to win Oscar for "best Foreign Documentary" -- "You don't like me" speech undermined image.
45. Used to make prank calls to FDR asking if he had "Prince Albert in a can"
46. Forgot correct interpretation of Nietzsche; caused much embarrassment when he used to cite philosophical support for his concept of the "Oberdude"
47. Got drunk on schnapps and suggested Tojo attack the U.S. saying, "The U.S. only has twenty times your industrial power, what are you, a wimp?"
48. Listened to too much Wagner and not enough Peter, Paul and Mary
Gina
Friday, October 3, 2008
Strikeforce
Commiefornia
Some of the laws that prohibit "assault" rifles are really very ignorant. Besides a long list of rifles that are banned outright like AK clones and other "assault" rifles, the law prohibits any semi-automatic rifle that has a detachable magazine and one of the following and I quote:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
That's where the HK goes into illegal territory… it has a conspicuous pistol grip. But why is a pistol grip illegal? Well the people who wrote this law are either retarded or were listening to people who are retarded. They believe that a pistol grip makes it easier to fire or spray from the hip and also fire one handed. WTF? First off only an idiot would believe it makes it easier to fire from the hip. I've shot from the hip a few times, it makes no difference, its stupid with either a pistol or straight stock. Secondly most of these weapons weight around 8+ lbs. and are not easy to shoot one handed. Plus you can not hit anything one handed except for with something designed to shoot one handed like… a pistol. What's a thumbhole stock? Basically a bulky pistol grip used in many hunting rifles. A folding stock I can actually see as being illegal but a telescoping stock? I have one on my shotgun. In the military and police they are used to allow the stock to be adjusted if the person had equipment or body armor on. But some people have longer or shorter arms and want to get a stock that can be adjusted for not just you but anyone who may decide to shoot the weapon. Plus they look cool… maybe that's the problem. A grenade or flare launcher? When was the last time someone used a grenade launcher to do harm in America? I don't think it has ever happened. I get it that maybe terrorists or some really smart gang members could use a grenade launched from a rifle to kill someone but if they really wanted to do that they could easily go to
The one thing people always say is why does someone need an AK-47 to hunt? Well why does someone need a Porsche to go to work? It's basically the same idea… a specialized tool used for a mundane activity. Well first off most people who would use an AK-47 for hunting would have it in semi-automatic with a thumbhole stock and scope, making it a semi-automatic hunting rifle not unlike a Browning BAR or Remington 7400 which are both completely legal but both have detachable magazines. Most people who buy a semi-automatic military style rifle are not going to go hunting with it… they use it for target shooting with friends or collecting. Why does Jerry Seinfeld get to collect race cars but I can not collect military rifles? More people are killed every year by cars than military rifles. I have the same desire to collect as he does but am limited by laws… isn't that not constitutional?
I'm not saying everyone should be able to own a military semi-automatic. I'm actually a fan of more gun laws but not anti-gun laws. I'd be willing to go to classes or longer background checks or even strick licenses. I think if someone is caught using any gun for bad or even using one dangerously they should be punished but don't punish everyone for their stupidity. Let's say a guy gets drunk and drives his Ferrari into a bus stop and kills a few people, the government is not going to ban drinking or Ferraris. The same should be true for any gun whether semi-automatic or not.
Crap Tech
The adoption of a better camouflage pattern has been successful when it comes to MARPAT(Marine Disruptive Pattern). This design come in two patterns: one for the forest/woodlands and one for desert. The pattern is often called digital but is really a mathematical pattern designed to fool the eyes. The Army saw this and decided they needed to be cool like the Marines and set about conducting a competition between multiple patterns. What they decided on was possibly the worse of the top 4. The pattern that should have won, in my opinion, was Multicam, but no they chose UCP instead. You might be asking whats wrong with that, obviously the Army knows something about camouflage? Well they should but instead they chose a design that was to blend into 3 different environments, Urban, Forest and Desert plus be less visible to night vision. Well they only succeed in being less visible to night vision, which is basically useless because most of our current or potential enemies have no night vision capabilities. By trying to blend into three completely different environments they succeed in blending into none. Its too bright to use in woodland/forest, its too grey to use in the urban environments except maybe LA, and the same for desert being too grey. I own this pattern in two different forms, I also own MultiCam and the two patterns of MARPAT. MulitCam is by far the best for all environments but MARPAT as the two separate patterns is the best option. I can understand that its more cost effective to have one uniform pattern that will work in all environments but aren't our men and women in uniform priceless?
Now on to my other gripe, rifles. The US military has used basically the same rifle for 40+ years and its time to move on. My problem with the M16 system is very complex and would take lots of room and time to write. I'll try to keep it simple: the M16 uses a system to cycle its bolt that is overly dirty and makes for a gun that jams at inopportune times and it fires a round that is ineffective against deer let alone people. The easiest answer to one of these problems is to retro fit the rifles with a new gas system that is more modern and cleaner. This system is already in wide use by other military's in other guns, like the AK-47 and G36. Our military has even tested M16/M4 rifles with the new gas system and they came out ahead in every respect. It would cost a little bit more to start buying rifles already with the system but kits could also be bought to modify already bought rifles. The rifle below uses the basic M16/M4 rifle with the improved gas system at only a marginal increase in price or a kit from the same company could be bought instead. Another option is to buy a whole knew rifle system all together. In my opinin this is the best long term solution. And the best weapon for the job is the Bushmaster ACR formally called the Magpul Masada. It improves on the M16 rifle in every way and it can be easily converted to almost any caliber in just minutes. But price has again become an issue. The second issue with the M16 is the ammo used is too underpowered nad in effective against humans. new rounds have been developed but it would be costly and take time to convert existing weapons and start getting the logistics ready. But Special Forces have already begun to use one alternative to the 5.56 NATO its called the 6.8 Remington SPC. It is the most cost effective solution to the problem but not nessicarily the best, the best being the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.5 Grendel could effectivly suplant not only the 5.56 NATO but also the 7.62 NATO which is used in many machine guns and sniper rifles. The Grendel though would be very costly and take even more time to convert weapons already in use. Again the Bushmaster ACR would be a solution to this problem since it can be easily changed to different calibers on the fly, including 7.62 Soviet which is the most common cartridge on the planet.
Anyways to rap up my rant the Military Industrial Complex has yet again let the troops down by making cost the key issue in how the troops are outfitted. Maybe if our government cared more about winning and less about dollars and cents our troops would be in better shape
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Bad Bullets
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
By RICHARD LARDNER, Associated Press Writer
As Sgt. Joe Higgins patrolled the streets of Saba al-Bor, a tough town north of Baghdad, he was armed with bullets that had a lot more firepower than those of his 4th Infantry Division buddies.
As an Army sniper, Higgins was one of the select few toting an M14. The long-barreled rifle, an imposing weapon built for wars long past, spits out bullets larger and more deadly than the rounds that fit into the M4 carbines and M16 rifles that most soldiers carry.
"Having a heavy cartridge in an urban environment like that was definitely a good choice," says Higgins, who did two tours in Iraq and left the service last year. "It just has more stopping power."
Strange as it sounds, nearly seven years into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bullets are a controversial subject for the U.S.
The smaller, steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal. They are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk, according to Associated Press interviews.
Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviet soldier's helmet hundreds of yards away, the M855 rounds are being used for very different targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of today's fighting takes place in close quarters; narrow streets, stairways and rooftops are today's battlefield. Legions of armor-clad Russians marching through the Fulda Gap in Germany have given way to insurgents and terrorists who hit and run.
Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Yet the Army is not changing. The answer is better aim, not bigger bullets, officials say.
"If you hit a guy in the right spot, it doesn't matter what you shoot him with," said Maj. Thomas Henthorn, chief of the small arms division at Fort Benning, Ga., home to the Army's infantry school.
At about 33 cents each, bullets do not get a lot of public attention in Washington, where the size of the debate is usually measured by how much a piece of equipment costs. But billions of M855 rounds have been produced, and Congress is preparing to pay for many more. The defense request for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 seeks $88 million for 267 million M855s, each one about the size of a AAA battery.
None of the M855's shortcomings is surprising, said Don Alexander, a retired Army chief warrant officer with combat tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Somalia.
"The bullet does exactly what it was designed to do. It just doesn't do very well at close ranges against smaller-statured people that are lightly equipped and clothed," says Alexander, who spent most of his 26-year military career with the 5th Special Forces Group.
Paul Howe was part of a U.S. military task force 15 years ago in Mogadishu, Somalia's slum-choked capital, when he saw a Somali fighter hit in the back from about a dozen feet away with an M855 round.
"I saw it poof out the other side through his shirt," says Howe, a retired master sergeant and a former member of the Army's elite Delta Force. "The guy just spun around and looked at where the round came from. He got shot a couple more times, but the first round didn't faze him."
With the M855, troops have to hit their targets with more rounds, said Howe, who owns a combat shooting school in Texas. That can be tough to do under high-stress conditions when one shot is all a soldier might get.
"The bullet is just not big enough," he says. "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible."
Dr. Martin Fackler, a former combat surgeon and a leading authority on bullet injuries, said the problem is the gun, not the bullet. The M4 rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel — too short to create the velocity needed for an M855 bullet to do maximum damage to the body.
"The faster a bullet hits the tissue, the more it's going to fragment," says Fackler. "Bullets that go faster cause more damage. It's that simple."
Rules of war limit the type of ammunition conventional military units can shoot. The Hague Convention of 1899 bars hollow point bullets that expand in the body and cause injuries that someone is less likely to survive. The United States was not a party to that agreement. Yet, as most countries do, it adheres to the treaty, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Hague restrictions do not apply to law enforcement agencies, however. Ballistics expert Gary Roberts said that is an inconsistency that needs to be remedied, particularly at a time when so many other types of destructive ordnance are allowed in combat.
"It is time to update this antiquated idea and allow U.S. military personnel to use the same proven ammunition," Roberts says.
In response to complaints from troops about the M855, the Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey assigned a team of soldiers, scientists, doctors and engineers to examine the round's effectiveness. The team's findings, announced in May 2006, concluded there were no commercially available rounds of similar size better than the M855.
But Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Corps major, said the Army buried the study's most important conclusion: that larger-caliber bullets are more potent.
"It was manipulated," says Milavic, a Vietnam veteran who manages an online military affairs forum called MILINET. "Everybody knows there are bullets out there that are better."
Officials at Picatinny Arsenal declined to be interviewed. In an e-mailed response to questions, they called the M855 "an overall good performer." Studies are being conducted to see if it can be made more lethal without violating the Hague Convention, they said.
Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.
Heavier rounds also mean more weight for soldiers to carry, as well as more recoil — the backward kick created when a round is fired. That long has been a serious issue for the military, which has troops of varied size and strength.
The M14 rifle used by Joe Higgins was once destined to be the weapon of choice for all U.S. military personnel. When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute. But most soldiers could not control the gun, and in the mid-1960s it gave way to the M16 and its smaller cartridge. The few remaining M14s are used by snipers and marksman.
U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., is buying a carbine called the SCAR Heavy for its commandos, and it shoots the same round as the M14. The regular Army, though, has invested heavily in M4 and M16 rifles and has no plans to get rid of them.
A change in expectations is needed more than a change in gear, said Col. Robert Radcliffe, chief of combat developments at Fort Benning. Soldiers go through training believing that simply hitting a part of their target is enough to kill it. On a training range, getting close to the bulls-eye counts. But in actual combat, nicking the edges isn't enough.
"Where you hit is essential to the equation," Radcliffe says. "I think the expectations are a little bit off in terms of combat performance against target range performance. And part of that is our fault for allowing that expectation to grow when it's really not there at all."
The arguments over larger calibers, Radcliffe says, are normal in military circles where emotions over guns and bullets can run high.
"One of the things I've discovered in guns is that damned near everyone is an expert," he says. "And they all have opinions."
I've been studying this for a few years now and have to concure that the current 5.56 NATO round is not an effecient round except if you want to punch a really small hole at a fair distance. the 7.62 NATO though is too much for most soldiers and too bulky. In my semi-educated opinion the best bullet is the 6.5 Grendel which could replace both the 5.56 and 7.62 with just a few modifications. That said the 7.62 still has a place in the military... mostly with medium range sharpshooters. Even that is debatable but thats for another rant.
Posts
