Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Resource Warfare from the Terrorists

The military switched from larger caliber bullets (30-06) to smaller caliber (.223) because they found larger caliber bullets tend to kill the intended recipient.  That would take one soldier off the field.  However, if you wounded one, it would potentially take three - the wounded soldier and two more soldiers to remove him from the field and save his life (and I swear to god, if any of you people come in and anal-rententively correct me on a technicality I'll murder your cats).

The same tactic is being employed here.  The enemies of western civilization are not so much concerned about killing targets one at a time as much as they are resource consumption.  THis scum bucket has consumed, in terms of time, more than just one Brit's life and thus caused more damage.

Of course, if Britons wanted to grow a spine and just start throwing/killing scum like him out, they could.  But that wouldn't be polite and the lefties would scream bloody murder.  Plus it would require self-respect and an appreciation for western civilization.


Anonymous said...

Grow a spine? Britain is officially pro-islamist state.

Anonymous said...

Actuall you got it wrong because smaller bullets pack more punch overall.
Look at comparison of standard 7,56 NATO vs 5,7mm FN. 7,56 has trouble penetrating vests at 200 meters, whilst 5,7 FN's pistol easily penetrates kevlar vests at 300 meters. So the reason of switching to smaller calibre, aside from size and accomodation costs reduction, are firepower. And smaller amunition is much more lethal, because the smaller calibres tend to bounce in the body, causing much larger wounds, while big projectiles just punch through leaving - most of the time - small punching holes on the other side. See ak-47 vs ak-74 for reference.
It's all question of mass of projectile times energy times size of patch of contact during the impact.

TheKangarooBoxer said...

i had no idea why they used the .223 until now, except for its price. good to know.

Anonymous said...

I hope you don't kill my cats (actually, I just have a German Shepherd).

If I posted something that was fundamentally wrong about economics and you saw it, I'd hope that you'd politely inform me of my error.

Your posting the myth about why the military chose the .223 is one of these things...

I apologize in advance for whoring my blog on here - but in case you're interested my response here

Miforest said...

If you look at the results of the 9/11 attack, TRILLIONS in increased security, a whole government agency created that will will be bleeding tens of billions from the productive sector to molest our women and children every year for all of eternity. not to mention the shredding of the constition in the name of "security" .

Two wars thathave completely destroyed american credibility in the entire muslim word.

christians that have lived as a tolerated minority since biblical times in muslim countries like iraq murderd or driven into exile.

our own government careening toward bankruptcy .

that's quite a return on a couple of million invested, and not a single shot fired.

Robert the Biker said...

Yeah, because'we' over here are so in love with these monkey-boys, it's not the government or anything or a supine and cowardly police force.
BTW, since you're such great supporters of Western Civilization, how's that Fort Hood Shooter trial going? I bet you have just got right down to business with that and don't have a President who just calls such things 'workplace violence' while sucking up to Al Quaida and betraying his allies.

Kristophr said...


There was a cheaper solution, but unfortunately, we didn't take it.

Formally declare war on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan after 9-11, and give them 48 hour to unilaterally surrender.

Then nuke them. Hard.

No trillion dollar 8 year war, no socialist assholes winning on war weariness in 2008. No 16 trillion dollar spending Democrat Party spree.

Just the cost of replacing about 500 sub launched nukes.

Ton said...

Anyone who has shot a deer with a .308 (7.62x51) or .30-06 (7.62x63 I think) knows they run away and die of wounds

Changing to .223 (5.56) had more to do with the changing concept of mass fire vs long rang fire.

There are also cost factors involved, weight issues...

The topic has been covered by a couple of different books. History of Service Rifles.... if memory serves covers all the american rifles.