Green Round

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:37 pm

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/a ... d_040210w/

The Army has apparently decided to field the new M855A1 "green" round. Supposedly lead-free. The Marines, on the other hand, have decided to use the SOST (Federal Bear Claw) round which supposedly has better ballistics and more stopping power.

Someone needs to get his head adjusted if he believes "green" trumps deadlly force in a combat round. Since when is combat supposed to be environmentally friendly? These folks are much to PC and could get more of those kids harmed.

Wonder if soldiers have the choice of 5.56 or .308 shooters?

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:14 pm

greener wrote: Since when is combat supposed to be environmentally friendly?

Yessir. Once you shoot the enemy, you ask 'em not to bleed so they won't pollute. I guess green ammo would be good for training and practice, IF it gave identical performance to the combat rounds, so all the weapons would still hold zero after the switch.

99/100 · Post by **99/100** » Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:44 pm

They moved the 10th group to Colorado because the environmental wienies in New England hounded them and when they moved they found the green wienies already there in their way. Didn't the Swedes use wood bullets?

greener · Post by **greener** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:54 am

Wooden bullets? Think of all the trees killed.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:13 am

greener wrote:Wooden bullets? Think of all the trees killed.

Are those intended for shooting WOODchucks?

greener · Post by **greener** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:08 pm

Sort of makes sense. Bird shot for birds, rat shot for rats and wood for chucks. Ammo should match the target.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:03 pm

greener wrote:Sort of makes sense. Bird shot for birds, rat shot for rats and wood for chucks. Ammo should match the target.

Makes sense to me. Use buck shot for bucks too.

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:41 pm

Nothing surprises anymore when the rules of engagement require advance notice when our guys are going to patrol an area. You really can't make some of this crap up. Regards

bebloomster · Post by **bebloomster** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:11 am

Early days of Vietnam.... had to get "permission" to shoot back !!!

Post by **Bullseye** » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:38 pm

We just need to throw a few politicians at the BG's and then we'll see the rules of engagement change. Great to see all those "lessons learned" from Vietnam have been follow so well. Just let the warfighter's fight and sort out the details later. War isn't user friendly and if you don't want to be a target get out of the field of fire!

R,
Bullseye

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:18 am

R, I want to thank you for allowing us (along as we stay within understandable bounds) to express our displeasure at the direction some things are going. Perhaps we will see a change soon

Regards

Post by **Bullseye** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 7:21 pm

No problem Kaz, I don't censor people's opinions. I welcome discussion. People feel how they do and sometimes discussing it helps everyone with a difficult subject. As long a folks aren't fighting with each other the boundaries are pretty wide. We are a nation of wide-ranging ideas and everyone has to realize that we all do not all think the same. If we can't talk here, then where do you express your thoughts?

R,
Bullseye

99/100 · Post by **99/100** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:32 pm

Bullseye wrote:We just need to throw a few politicians at the BG's and then we'll see the rules of engagement change. Great to see all those "lessons learned" from Vietnam have been follow so well. Just let the warfighter's fight and sort out the details later. War isn't user friendly and if you don't want to be a target get out of the field of fire!

R,
Bullseye

I'm in a position where I see some of the "new" doctrinal stuff. Funny but other than changing the words to "current verbiage" interdiction and ambush pretty much come out the same.

greener · Post by **greener** » Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:39 pm

Bullseye wrote:We just need to throw a few politicians at the BG's and then we'll see the rules of engagement change. Great to see all those "lessons learned" from Vietnam have been follow so well. Just let the warfighter's fight and sort out the details later. War isn't user friendly and if you don't want to be a target get out of the field of fire!

R,
Bullseye

You sure the Geneva and Hague conventions allow throwing politicians at BG's? Probably worse than dum dum bullets and chicken a la king MRE's.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:36 pm

You may be right about that - subjecting the BGs to "hand-tossed" politicians could be construed as "cruel and unusual" punishment and violate the rules of the Convention.

I must also have to agree about the "barf in a bag" MREs - Chicken-Ala-King is not my favorite MRE menu selection either. It kind of makes me think of a colostomy bag when it's all mixed up. (sorry to everyone for that mental picture) Although, using enough tabasco sauce can make just about anything edible - even crap in a sack (err. Chicken-Ala-King!)

R,
Bullseye

GunTalk-Online.com

Green Round

Green Round

Re: Green Round