Metro Strikes again

[ixtow]

imported post

I can see both sides of it....

While most who are enlisted are there to serve.... It is still a standing military force that must obey the whims of it's politicians, or face unemployment, and even execution.... Would even a good soldier not follow orders to kill citizens, when his wife and children are thousands of miles away essentially held as hostages to ensure his 'loyalty?'

That is the reality of our government, and not one single senator or representative would hesitate to use that kind of leverage to get their way. It is the nature of a career politician to use and abuse any and all power at their disposal. The only thing that saves us, is that our elected officials are all too petty to organize themselves.

Look at how miserably the Democrats have failed in their attempt to shove ObamaCare down our throats. They stopped themselves...

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, just presenting the other side of the coin. Were soldiers NOT disarmed, I doubt very much any of us would be here right now, and the good ol' US of A would be nothing but a blip on the historical radar; having it's parasitic politicians not smart enough to keep their host alive... It isn't a jab at soldiers. Any man armed with a machine gun and sent off to kill while another gun is pointed at the base of their kids' heads, is gonna do exactly as he is told. You would be hammering out your hot-headed, hateful reply to this message in Canada Del Sur...

 

[45 ACP rocks]

imported post

vegasche1023 wrote:

Well put!! anybody can shoot at a stationary paper target, while calmly taking aim. They need to practice with paintball guns in real life scenarios like SWAT does.

Right. I had no problem with it taking 81 rounds.

It kinda reminded me of a military combat situation. In Vietnam, we pumped out a huge amount of bullets with a much worse hit rate than this event. And we were mostly using long guns.

When the adrenaline is pumping, and you are scootin' and shootin', accuracy is chancy at best.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

Vegas Rick wrote:

vegasche1023 wrote:

Well put!! anybody can shoot at a stationary paper target, while calmly taking aim. They need to practice with paintball guns in real life scenarios like SWAT does.

Right. I had no problem with it taking 81 rounds.

It kinda reminded me of a military combat situation. In Vietnam, we pumped out a huge amount of bullets with a much worse hit rate than this event. And we were mostly using long guns.

When the adrenaline is pumping, and you are scootin' and shootin', accuracy is chancy at best.

One of the reasons the M-16A2 did not have full automatic capability was the experience with the full auto selectable A1 in Vietnam. I remember reading in several sources, sorry no idea what sources, that the rounds expended per casualty inflicted went up to 50+ THOUSAND rounds in Vietnam.

Mostly the result of "spray and pray" with the weapon up and heads down when in the bush.

 

[Dangerfish]

imported post

Actually thats the WW2 numbers, something like 20-50k per enemy killed. Vietnam was 200+k rounds per enemy.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

Dangerfish wrote:

Actually thats the WW2 numbers, something like 20-50k per enemy killed. Vietnam was 200+k rounds per enemy.

Well, this source, while not academic quality, seems to be based straight out of a military manual.


http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/sniperschool.htm

"According to figures released by the Department of Defense, the average number of rounds expended in Vietnam to kill one enemy solder with the M-16 was 50,000. The average number of rounds expended by U.S. military snipers to kill one enemy soldier was 1.3 rounds. That's a cost-difference of $23,000 per kill for the average soldier, vs. $0.17 per kill for the military sniper. "

 

[Hawaii FiveO]

imported post

Gordie wrote:

<snip>
The sad fact is that most LEOs only fire their weapons enough to get their quals and then pretty much forget about their use until it's too late to do anything to improve their abilities. Even with free ammo and range time available, they just don't bother to practice.

Gordie, you make a good point. Here is a post reply in CA forum. Big Toe wrote a long but good essay and I replied:


"Big Toe said, in part:

'With both of these scenarios, if the open carrier is instead a police officer, the same results could occur. Sure, it's possible that the officer may have more experience firing a firearm and therefore be a better shooter in a controlled environment. '

I shoot once a month. I shoot wheel guns, autoloaders, long guns, shotguns, large calibre, small calibre, 15 yd, 25 yd, and 100 yd.

When I was a police officer I qualified *once* a year. Usually usingonly the service weapon and sometimes an AR15, and rarely a shotgun.

Once a year vs once a month. I think I could say that I probably "have more experience firing a firearm and therefor be a better shooter " than the average police officer.

You wrotea very good, lucid and reasonable essay."

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

So what about those of us who spent 10 or more years in the military and can put 10 rounds on target, out of 10, at 500 yards.....WITH A PEEP SIGHT?

Or can hit 10 out of 10 pop ups in the first 2 rounds on a tactical course with the AR (M-16 when active duty and had access to pop up tactical ranges)?

We don't even want to TRY to comprehend what special operators are capable of in the way of rounds on target, semi-auto, in close quarters, in 15 seconds or so.

The point being, police officers are trained to MINIMUM STANDARDS standards. In the Corps, the minimum standard was exponentially higher for the basic Marine recruit and continued through your time in/career. Unless police officerspersonally take it upon themselves to go out on their time and get more firearms training, they aren't likely to be well trained. Exceptions for the afore mentioned self training officers, who by the way are morelikely to be familiar with UOCers and the friendlier ones we come into contact with because they're used to seeing civillians with sidearms, and special units.

 

[45 ACP rocks]

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

So what about those of us who spent 10 or more years in the military and can put 10 rounds on target, out of 10, at 500 yards.....WITH A PEEP SIGHT?

Or can hit 10 out of 10 pop ups in the first 2 rounds on a tactical course with the AR (M-16 when active duty and had access to pop up tactical ranges)?

We don't even want to TRY to comprehend what special operators are capable of in the way of rounds on target, semi-auto, in close quarters, in 15 seconds or so.

Yep, that's me, peep sight and all. There was very little correlation between knocking down pop-ups on a range and making hits in the field (unless you were a sniper). I shot Expert on range in CONUS; in RVN, very not so much.

I find it totally OK for the LEO's to use 81 rounds to get a couple of hits. Circumstances are critical for such judgments.
____________
MACV, 5th ARVN Division Advisory Team, 1969

 

[Dangerfish]

imported post

Read the book "On Killing", you will then know why it took 81 rounds.

 

[We-the-People]

imported post

Personally I carry an FN 5.7. Not a large caliber projectile but at 1700 fps out of the barrel and 21 rounds before changing mags I figure in an SD situation without a background problem (i.e. innocents in the direction of fire) I can lay down a wall of lead while retreating to safe haven. If aimed fire is necessary it is accurate to 100 yards (3.5" drop at 100 yards).

The number of shots fired per hit might be high but hopefully the initial "burst" from the intended victim would be sufficient to do the job of DEFENSE.

If not, there are two more 20 round mags to keep the FN happy.