Marines going back to Colt 1911

[SharonAnne]

Mike in Virginia. Hello and I hope today finds you well.

The magazine capacity can be overcome with a wide body 1911 style frame. PARA-USA makes pistols in several sizes of .45ACP. Springfield will make a wide body 1911 on request. Essential Arms makes a semi-clone of the PARA frame. Caspian makes a wider body frame that can be made into a 10 or 12 round full size pistol.  The PARA, Springfield and EA all use the same basic magazine that in the standard size frame holds 14 rounds.

With the magazine capacity advantage eliminated I wonder what it is that puts the 1911 type pistol "very much at a disadvantage" to the XDM?  On what do you base your statement that the XDM is "more accurate"?

I am not meaning to be argumentative, just wondering on what these statements are  based?

[jlwilliams]

  I'm not really up to speed on what the advancements are in the SD line.  A friend has one that I shot, but that was once and a while ago.  What is it that makes the new gen gun an improvement I can't say.  None the less, I'm also a little surprised that they didn't go with a more modern design.  I would think that going back to the gun that was replaced is dangerously close to admitting that those in the position to have made that decision may have been......wrong.  That's something that big organizations seldom admit.  If they went for the SD, they would have been replacing the replacement with a third option.  Upgrading again, as oposed to doubling back.  I'm surprised that the egos at the Pentagon would come so close to admitting error.
 
  Even aside from the ego issue, I am still surprised that they didn't pick a more modern pistol.  Most civillian law enforcement agencies are shooting 9mm or 40s&w handguns these days.  Those that carry 45 are mostly carrying SD, SIG or some other modern design.  I think there may be a few departments with 1911s, but not many.  There was a big stink when a big department (don't remember who) returned all their Kimbers.  It was a reliability issue IIRC.  Anyway, the 1911 is a hundred year old design.  No doubt still a good gun, but an old one.  Still one of my favorite guns, but I'm not arming an agency, a department, much less The Corps.  I am surprised that the Marines didn't go for one of the many other newer 45 cal autopistols.

[SHOOTALL]

The double stack 45's are indeed alot of fire power at the cost of weight. I have both and the single stack carries better and is faster IMHO. If you like loads of ammo in your weapon and feel you will never need speed in the draw or between shots then it hi cap would be your choice. I tend to like the handling of the single stack better and less weight. Also if a high cap mag is lost or dropped you lose alot of ammo but with a single stack only half as much is lost.
Many who side with the high cap often seem to feel they can draw and engage alot of bad guys since they have bunches of bullets. Truth is if there are bunches of bad guys and they are shooting you better be seeking cover which offers a good place to reload anyway. On the Hi cap side if all you can grab is the weapon with it's load of ammo then the Hi cap is king.
Now the 5.56 , After talking with some men who used the round in combat from different conflicts it seems it can do well and poor. Up close it is and has been a good stopper . It is easy to aim and carry. Like mentioned a load of ammo can be carried. When the distance gets longer it tends to not be as effective according to others who used it. That seems fair as most rounds suffer the same fate. As example one guy said he saw enemy hit several times and they ran off . But another time saw his sergent shoot a guy in the hip and the bullet came out his shoulder he was dead. Like any defense shooting stopping the bad guy/enemy is very important. As for ammo a friend who was in VN put it in perspective . He said he carried about 30 ( 20 round) mags loaded on long patrols. He and others would leave off other equipment in order to carry more ammo and food. He also carried some reloads. He noted most fights were short but fast. One fight started about dark and lasted to dawn. He said that any noise drew fire from both sides as there was no way to know who was where. He was down to his last loaded mag. as the sun came up. He said he knew trying to load a mag would draw fire . I can't imagine loading carrying that much 308 ammo. And for the record I like the 308 better. If you go back you will see the wizz kids pushed the AR -15 that the Air Force adopted first ( note one of the wizz kids came from the AF  ). But the same math was used that improved bombing effectivness in WW2 . So was it politics or good planing ? Who knows . Has the AR been a perfect rifle no . Have the bugs beed worked out ? some have. Can there be improvments made ? sure.
 It seems everyone ( myself included ) picks a rifle , pistol or cart. and nothing else is as good for the military , police or even hunters. Reality is different jobs require different weapons. The M4 is great in towns up close and personal with the correct ammo. But at longer ranges in the desert it has not been the best choice and the M14 and some M1-A's have been upgraded to fill in these duties. Sniper rifles have evolved also to go longer distances as example the 20 mm has seen alot of development and it can hit targets mesured in miles distant. It seems the best tool for the job depends on the job.
As a side in Va. the 22 cal. weapons are not allowed for deer hunting. After not careing for AR's for years after a couple less than great experinces I decided to see if there were improvments . I also decided to see if building one was as easy as some said. I built a 6.8 spc. It seems a good hunting round . It also seems a good middle ground between the 5.56 and 7.62 . It has military roots so it might at least get tested.
the 1911 back to org post , From reading it seemed some units of the Marine corp never stopped using the 45 . Not sure if that is true or not. There are all sorts of arguments for the 9 mm but in the end nothing beats cubic inches .

[Mike in Virginia]

Lordy, Sharon.  I sure don't want to disagree with a person of your knowledge.  I was going on my only experience with the XDM, which I didn't even see in person.  It's my brother's gun, and he raves about it't accuracy.  What I know about 1911's is also limited.  I've had several in my lifetime.  Colts, Sprinfields, Kimbers.  I suppose I've owned about 10.  The Colt Gold Cup was the most accurate of them all and 25 yard groups of less than 1.5" were common.  Many 3 shot clover leafs off the bench.  But the others were not even close to what I'm told about the XDM.  It would seem to be a perfect military holster gun. 
With all that said, I would much rather have a 1911.  Gonna get the Ruger if I can ever find one.  They certainly are not a 1.5" gun, and they hold a lot less ammo than a double stack, but as I said before, I just like 'em. 

[SharonAnne]

Hi Mike. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with me. I just wanted to know the source of your information.  I trust what a person has seen or done. I trust results of repeatable tests. I doubt things like "well this guy told my cousin that his friend said...". Anecdotal 'information' is the least reliable, especially when "i put a round of .348 Ultrablast Mangum right through that grizz's heart at 200M and he just ran off. Damn no good cartridge". You see what I mean. Most likely, rather than hitting that 'grizz' in the heart, the shooter just plain missed. If the animal ran off he has no idea where or even IF he hit it.

On another forum I was accused of being a 'know it all' and that I 'hated Glocks'. I stated that if I did not know something I said so. Often I would tell someone I did not know so he knew someone was reading his question and not ignoring him. I also said that "I do not like Glocks". I also recommended the Glock to anyone not willing to learn the 1911. My reasons for disliking the Glock are: it feels odd in my hand, having a strange grip angle and not being the same shape as a 1911 or 1911 wide body.  The triggers suck.  The plastic of the frame just feels 'icky'. Yes, I said 'icky'. It may sound 'girly' but hey, I AM a girl ( an old 'girl' but a girl none the less)  and it is my opinion and I stick with it.

I know a lot about a few things. I know a little about a lot of things. I know nothing about the majority of  things.


Shootall, since the operating system of a 1911 wide body is identical to a single stack 1911 I do not see how one could be faster than the other either in the draw or shot to shot.
 
 The loss of a magazine is the greater problem, not the amount of ammunition in it. Ammunition is delivered by the case, and I believe a magazine would be by special order.
 
 You seem to think that just because a person has a higher capacity weapon that they suddenly lose control of their ability to engage in aimed fire. Just as guns don't kill people, people kill people; magazines do not fire weapons, people fire weapons.
 
 
 When I shoot a .45acp I do not suddenly loose my ability to fire aimed shots because I have more rounds in the magazine. My ability to draw a pistol is not dependent on the magazine capacity.
 
 I do not believe claims that someone was shot many times and ran away. The only way to know how many times someone was shot is to count the holes, something that cannot be done if the subject runs away.
 
 Claims of cartridge inadequacy are not new. In the Korean conflict soldiers claimed to empty a full magazine of M1Carbine into an enemy with zero effect. Some even claimed that .30 Carbine could not penetrate the North Korean down jackets because they soaked up water and froze. The latter claim has been demonstrated to be patently false.
 
 If an enemy combatant runs away then he was not hit in the torso. It has never been claimed by one or OUR soldiers that he took a full magazine of enemy fire with no effect. Why is it that only enemy combatants seem to have this super human ability?  Because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
 
 I have never heard of anyone claiming that his rounds were totally ineffective, volunteer to be shot by said round. The reason is he knows that to be shot with the "totally ineffective" round, he would die.
 
 Those who claim that a round has no more power that a .22 rimfire at what ever range always refuse to be shot by the same said .22 rimfire. They know darn well that even the lowly .22 rimfire will hurt like blazes (something I can attest to from personal experience), it will cause severe damage (ditto) and probably kill you.

Now I have allowed myself to be drawn off topic by Shootall.  Discussion of the 5.56, M16, M4 and 20mm sniper rifles have no place in the page "Marines going back to Colt 1911"

And so keith44, I do apologize.
 

[Mikey]

"Discussion of the 5.56, M16, M4 and 20mm sniper rifles have no place in the page "Marines going back to Colt 1911"".
Nuff said. 

[SHOOTALL]

Hi Mike. There is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with me. I just wanted to know the source of your information.  I trust what a person has seen or done. I trust results of repeatable tests. I doubt things like "well this guy told my cousin that his friend said...". Anecdotal 'information' is the least reliable, especially when "i put a round of .348 Ultrablast Mangum right through that grizz's heart at 200M and he just ran off. Damn no good cartridge". You see what I mean. Most likely, rather than hitting that 'grizz' in the heart, the shooter just plain missed. If the animal ran off he has no idea where or even IF he hit it.

On another forum I was accused of being a 'know it all' and that I 'hated Glocks'. I stated that if I did not know something I said so. Often I would tell someone I did not know so he knew someone was reading his question and not ignoring him. I also said that "I do not like Glocks". I also recommended the Glock to anyone not willing to learn the 1911. My reasons for disliking the Glock are: it feels odd in my hand, having a strange grip angle and not being the same shape as a 1911 or 1911 wide body.  The triggers suck.  The plastic of the frame just feels 'icky'. Yes, I said 'icky'. It may sound 'girly' but hey, I AM a girl ( an old 'girl' but a girl none the less)  and it is my opinion and I stick with it.

I know a lot about a few things. I know a little about a lot of things. I know nothing about the majority of  things.


Shootall, since the operating system of a 1911 wide body is identical to a single stack 1911 I do not see how one could be faster than the other either in the draw or shot to shot. The weight seems to slow me down some . I notice it more when switching from one to the other . Note , my gun is all steel. And if the gun is a LDA it's operating systen is similar but not identical .
 
 The loss of a magazine is the greater problem, not the amount of ammunition in it. Ammunition is delivered by the case, and I believe a magazine would be by special order.While hunting , on a hike etc the loss of a mag would be bad for sure . The loss of a hi cap mag could mean the loss of more ammo that could not be replaced until after it may have been needed.
 
 You seem to think that just because a person has a higher capacity weapon that they suddenly lose control of their ability to engage in aimed fire. Just as guns don't kill people, people kill people; magazines do not fire weapons, people fire weapons.Well rest assured I don't feel that way as I noted I have one . I listed things I have noticed that new shooters to the Hi cap gun should know about and consider before buying. I don't think I mentioned aimed fire at all though and find the weight of my gun in fact helps tith aimed fire .
BTW without a magazine most pistols become single shot guns that are hard to load.
 
 
 When I shoot a .45acp I do not suddenly loose my ability to fire aimed shots because I have more rounds in the magazine. My ability to draw a pistol is not dependent on the magazine capacity. That's fantastic
 
 I do not believe claims that someone was shot many times and ran away. The only way to know how many times someone was shot is to count the holes, something that cannot be done if the subject runs away. I often ask if drugs were in use as one being shot is high on drugs may not know he is shot and dieing.
 
 Claims of cartridge inadequacy are not new. In the Korean conflict soldiers claimed to empty a full magazine of M1Carbine into an enemy with zero effect. Some even claimed that .30 Carbine could not penetrate the North Korean down jackets because they soaked up water and froze. The latter claim has been demonstrated to be patently false. I had never heard about the freezing thanks for shareing . I worked with a guy who was in 17 hand to hand fights who said they ran out of ammo each time. He liked the 30 carbine because he could carry more ammo. He also said the NK were druged up at times . He lost the 17 fight and had the cuts to prove it.
 
 If an enemy combatant runs away then he was not hit in the torso. It has never been claimed by one or OUR soldiers that he took a full magazine of enemy fire with no effect. Why is it that only enemy combatants seem to have this super human ability?  Because IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. I have to think you are correct since it would be hard to stay on target that long while being fired at but I haven't been there.
 
 I have never heard of anyone claiming that his rounds were totally ineffective, volunteer to be shot by said round. The reason is he knows that to be shot with the "totally ineffective" round, he would die. I have heard that rounds failed to stop to often . Some fron VN and also from some comming back fron Iran. I have also heard the 5.56 did good so it would seem that it depends on what happened to each soilder .
 
 Those who claim that a round has no more power that a .22 rimfire at what ever range always refuse to be shot by the same said .22 rimfire. They know darn well that even the lowly .22 rimfire will hurt like blazes (something I can attest to from personal experience), it will cause severe damage (ditto) and probably kill you.The concept of being shot to prove ones point is silly really . Would you offer to be shot to prove the ablity of a 45 acp to stop a threat ?

Now I have allowed myself to be drawn off topic by Shootall.  Discussion of the 5.56, M16, M4 and 20mm sniper rifles have no place in the page "Marines going back to Colt 1911"Don't blame me I only offered my opinions on a double stack pistol you went off on the 30 cal. carbine and AR all on your own though it may have roots in other post from years gone by.
BTW did ya'll notice the M-14 making a come back ? Wonder if that opened the door for the 1911 to do the same.

And so keith44, I do apologize.

[SharonAnne]

go back to Mikeys last post.


Nuff said.

[SHOOTALL]

of course .........

[keith44]

 
 ...
 
 ...

 ...

 ...

And so keith44, I do apologize.

Sorry, no apology needed, so none accepted.


Threads drift, conversations evolve (or devolve), you present an intelligent argument, and obviously are speaking from experience not from something you read in a book.  So jump in on my threads anytime.

[SharonAnne]

thank you Keith44

apology withdrawn

it is the devolving I am concerned about. They often turn into a spitting contest.

[SHOOTALL]

This is interesting really one can offer their opinion and if it dosen't agree with another can be told their statements are not valid and other cuts then be told it's a spitting contest . So much for open fair debate .

[ironglow]

So says Fox news.  22 million dollars worth.  The article I read mentioned their special ops group, so it might be just for them. 
Why do you think it is that they want the old gun back.       Bcause a 9mm hardball is insufficient.  It just seems to me the gov't could save some mony buy using +P hollowpoints in their Berettas.  I know it's not in keeping with Geneva, but it just seems silly.  The military can use tanks and .50 sniper rifles and machine guns and all kinds of missles and bombs, but not hollow point ammo in their handguns.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  That assessment of the 9mm hardball is exactly what my grandson told me after his 2 deployments in Iraq as Special Ops Marine.  he did not like the Beretta for that reason. In house clearing operations, he preferred the M4 or the Mossy 500...or in more open areas the M249 SAW.  He said the 9mm hardball was just not a stopper, especially with some of the stuff the enemy was apparently on.       
 

[SharonAnne]

shootall.  ? and, whatever.

[keith44]

This is interesting really one can offer their opinion and if it dosen't agree with another can be told their statements are not valid and other cuts then be told it's a spitting contest . So much for open fair debate .

Opinions and theories abound... both are akin to "ice holes", everyone has one, ...

Most of us here will disagree with each other some time.  If we all agreed about everything, this would be a very boring forum.

[SHOOTALL]

shootall.  ? and, whatever.

 
 

[jlwilliams]

  Jacketed ball hangun ammo isn't the bee's knees.  Unfortunately, I don't see them switching over to good hollow points.  As I understand it, the hollow point ammo ban in the Geneva Conventions (I'm not sure if that is the actucal agreement in question, but for the sake of discussion.....) only applies to rifle ammo.  From what I have been told, jhp can legally be used in handguns, but I can't cite a source for that.  Anyway, I have been told that the Pentagon sticks to fmj for it's own reasons.  Partly percieved humanitarianism.  I have trouble buying that.  If they thought it would give them an edge, they would create a legal arguement around any ban.  I suspect that with millions of handguns on millions of hips, they are concearned that hollow points would cause failures.  If the fmj is more reliable than the jhp, I can see the Pentagon choosing reliability over terminal ballistics.  They need crates of ammo that will work in all those guns.
 
  Unfortunately, I don't see any really good way to make the handgun much better for military use.  With the wide use of body armor worldwide, the wide use of drugs (I'm told skinnies on khat don't drop easy) and so on, there are good reasons why the assault rifle is preeminent.  Hollow points don't penetrate vehicles as well as hardballs.  Hardballs don't damage flesh like hollow points.  The real problem is that handguns aren't death rays.  45 vs 9mm is still a choice between two handgun rounds.  Handguns are great for us civillians.  Good personal protection that you can carry.  For soldiers, handguins have always been and will always be backup.
 
  My prediction is that switching to 45 won't really make much difference.

[SHOOTALL]

I believe you will find that HP ammo can't be used in any weapon I have heard if it is for accuracy there is debate though. I doubt its a question of feed issues as there are pistols out there that will feed HP's . I have read and heard from some in service that "people" sometimes send HP ammo to a son or such and it is a violation if they get caught with it.

[ironglow]

I believe you will find that HP ammo can't be used in any weapon I have heard if it is for accuracy there is debate though. I doubt its a question of feed issues as there are pistols out there that will feed HP's . I have read and heard from some in service that "people" sometimes send HP ammo to a son or such and it is a violation if they get caught with it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Shootall;
   I have understood that to be true that generally, HP ammo is "verbotten" ... but take my word for it, this bullet is what is furnished for our snipers:  http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1
  There is a way for a troop to get around the HP restriction if he really wants to..just file or scuff of the guilding metal point, so a bit of lead is showing.
       Some of the Matchkings are hollow point with full metal jacket..sounds crazy, but truly the forward section (point) is hollow..and with, for all practical purposes, a FMJ.  Can be a very nasty and effective bullet.
  Below,  top.. Sierra 107 gr HPBT, middle...  Berger105 gr VLD,  bottom... Hornady105 gr V-max
 
   

[SHOOTALL]

I know , the russians do so too. Like I mentioned if for accuracy vs destruction some argure  . I guess those in the decision making know best but consider the destruction of a FMJ, HP or exploding 50 cal. or even larger stuff. Really is the HP the most destructive ?

[ironglow]

I know , the russians do so too. Like I mentioned if for accuracy vs destruction some argure  . I guess those in the decision making know best but consider the destruction of a FMJ, HP or exploding 50 cal. or even larger stuff. Really is the HP the most destructive ?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Those Geneva convention rules were made up when?..back in 1949?  And of course, they were probably written by politicians of one stripe or another, so the rules may or may not make sense in some respects.  For instance, the 5.56 mm NATO round is extra lethal, due to it's tumbling action in the target body...not sure the HP would be any advantage.  Besides, it is doubtful HP bullets would penetrate body armor as well as a FMJ bullet.
   I am not so sure the space in the point of the Sierra match bullets is for destruction, so much as it is for bullet stabilization in flight.
  I will have to check...

[ironglow]

A short checkup, seems to reveal that we are wrongly attributing the ban on HP ammo to the Geneva convention, while more likely it is from the Hague convention.
****************************************************************************************************
Legality.40 S&W round, complete cartridge and expanded bulletThe Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibited the use in international warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body.^[3] This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention.
Despite the ban on military use, hollow-point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition, due largely to the reduced risk of bystanders being hit by over-penetrating or ricocheted bullets, and the increased speed of incapacitation
***********************************************************************************
  Evidently, by the words of the first sentence above...hollow points per se, are not prohibited, but rather any bullet which expands or flattens easily.  Of course, with today's long ranges and body armor..plus the tumbling effect..pretty well negates the old "flattening bullet" rule..
   

[SHOOTALL]

I know , the russians do so too. Like I mentioned if for accuracy vs destruction some argure  . I guess those in the decision making know best but consider the destruction of a FMJ, HP or exploding 50 cal. or even larger stuff. Really is the HP the most destructive ?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Those Geneva convention rules were made up when?..back in 1949?  And of course, they were probably written by politicians of one stripe or another, so the rules may or may not make sense in some respects.  For instance, the 5.56 mm NATO round is extra lethal, due to it's tumbling action in the target body...not sure the HP would be any advantage.the russian bullet has a steel penitrator that comes forward on impact so it would seem you can have the best of both.  Besides, it is doubtful HP bullets would penetrate body armor as well as a FMJ bullet.
   I am not so sure the space in the point of the Sierra match bullets is for destruction, so much as it is for bullet stabilization in flight.the HP on a target bullet is for stablization if you need proof just get a can and cut ehe end off. throw it closed end first like a football then the  open end first like a football. after doing so there will be question why match bullets are often if not always HP. 
  I will have to check...You will find they note not to use them as hunting bullets as they will not expand jacket is to thick.

[ironglow]

The NATO 5.56mm round as loaded by Lake City also has a penetrator round.  In fact all our ammo up through the 50 cal have a penetrator round..  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqTZAzUj1PQ
 
     Here, a NATO 5.56 chews up a brake rotor.. not so concerned with brake rotors, but they do a number on body armor.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCvMYn8_WM4 

[SHOOTALL]

the russian round had a hollow cavity in the nose also. But back to handguns , bigger holes no matter how you get them seem best if they also go deep.

[Mike in Virginia]

Regarding match ammo, I have an M14 I bought new 20 years ago.  Pre-ban, walnut stock, standard gun.  I hunted deer with it for years with softpoint 150 grain ammo.  Then I started thinking about best accuracy, so I tried a lot of different factory loads and settled on Federal Gold Medal Match, which uses Sierra's 168 grain, h/p boatail Match King.  It has a tiny tiny hollowpoint hole in the jacket.  I zeroed the rifle for that ammo. 
Not wanting to change my sight settings for hunting, I used that match ammo on two deer.  It acts like ballistic tip ammo and blows a horrible hole on the deer's opposite side and splashes blood all over the woods.  Terribly gory. 
It makes me wonder what the .308 hardball would do, although I know better than to try it.  I'd say the M14 with hardball knocks the enemy down just like the M1s did with hardball.  A lot faster kill than hardball the .223 the military is so crazy about.     

[SharonAnne]

the Geneva Convention so often referred to about hollow points is in fact the Hague Convention of 1899.

"Declaration (IV,3) concerning expanding bullets, The Hague, 29 July 1899

The CONTRACTING PARTIES (emphasis added) agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as a bullet with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.

Done at the Hague, 29 July 1899

The present declaration is ONLY BINDING FOR THE CONTRACTING PARTIES (emphasis added) in the case of war between two or more of them. "

From this we see that hollow points are not mentioned AND this convention is only binding on contracting parties who are at war. The USA did not sign the 1899, 1901 or 1949 accords. The USA never declared war on anyone since the 1940s.  As such the use of any particular bullets is meaningless. And let us get real, what difference does it make what bullet is used when white phosphorus, napalm, cluster bombs and fuel/air bombs are all in use.

Our poor grunt groundpounders deserve the most effective small arms ammunition we can produce. To do less is to treat our troops as cannon fodder.

[ironglow]

All I can say is that our sniper ammo has the Sierra 168 gr as mentioned above..and it works very well.
  Perhaps snipers come under different rules?  Or perhaps the powers-to-be are saying "machs nichts"!

[SHOOTALL]

The Geneva Convention consist of 4 treaties and 3 protocols . The trem Geneva Convention is the 1949 agrement which up dated the first 3 treaties. the GC 1949 was ratified in whole or with reseravations by 194 countries , The US being one of them .

[SharonAnne]

the most important factor is it only applies when EACH side is a signatory and have signed articles of war on each other. Al Quida, the Taliban and the Mujihadeen are not nation states and as such cannot sign the accords or sign articles of war.

We need to quit screwing around and give our soldiers and sailors the best tools available to protect themselves.