Since they can't hammer the military and W over progress in Iraq any more, the AP has moved on to resurrecting ages-old arguments like which round we should shoot. The title of the piece is telling with it's accusatory tone
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.
Excuse me, we invented an entirely new way of war? I don't think so, I'm pretty sure we are still pointing our guns at bad guys and making holes in them with bullets. That's pretty standard since gunpowder came about. Now we have an AP reporter, clueless as a hog looking at a wristwatch, finding out that experts are all sure about one thing, bigger bullets make bigger holes. No shit? By that logic our front-line combat troops ought to be equipped with M-105 personal howitzers. One shot one kill, right? The non-alcoholic beer served in theater is not potent enough to get the troops drunk decisively according to Uncle J interviews. There was a study asking combat vets if they believed that bigger rounds would help.
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.
So their major data point is that 20% of the troops they asked wanted bigger bullets, is that even a significant number? Second, did they ask them how mush they would enjoy humping another 20 lbs. of freakin' ammo around? What a joke. I am hoping this Chief was quoted out of context, because this statement makes no sense at all.
"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.
As opposed to it's effects on large-statured, heavily-equipped and clothed people?
There are many reasons why our troops are outfitted with M4 5.56 caliber guns, and you can find as many experts who will argue that the advantages of more and lighter rounds outweigh the advantage of a weightier round. Well, opinions are like bungholes everyone has one and the AP's opinion is to highlight anything they think reflects badly on our military leadership. I assume the expose on the pitiful stopping power of the 9mm v. the .45 is next. Apologies to all those who take these arguments deadly seriously. I think they are near enough to a wash and affected by so many factors they are not resolvable. The AP is simply looking to stir up controversy and sling mud.