In this episode of What the Fuck America, a retired army kernel goes head to head with a lifelong fed. Colonel Tucker declares before the court that…

spoiler

…NATO 5.56 and/or (?) 0.223 caliber ammo can decapitate or split the upper body from the lower in a single shot. To support this claim, he makes up a story about a marine and then describes the Iraqi children he saw torn in half.

Did this hero just self report? It also turns out that your average lifelong war criminal doesn’t really even need to know how guns work lmao

  • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve heard that 5.56 was chosen over 7.62 NATO cause it was about as effective with the added benefit of being small and therefore lighter to carry. I think this accounted for the tumbling myth, but i dont have any background in ballistics to know or believe otherwise.

    • keepcarrot [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is likely the reason (50% more bullets per weight or whatever), but there were a lot of propaganda attempts to get soldiers to like the M16 over the AK47 especially after soldiers had felt like they’d been done dirty.

      Increased bullet tumbling, the wounding argument, and hydrostatic shock advantages all feel like variations of this to me, and verifying gun myths was a lot harder back then. Also soldiers tend not the be the brightest bulbs. Such myths would have spread like wildfire as soldiers compared their standard issue to their trophy AKs.

      • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah the M16s initial reliability issues were also the fault of procurement, as I’ve heard they were firing rounds with the wrong powder it was designed for, causing jams or something.

        In that position who wouldnt lie to their soldiers to get them to use the weapons they paid so much money to have?

    • LENINSGHOSTFACEKILLA [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve heard that 5.56 was chosen over 7.62 NATO cause it was about as effective with the added benefit of being small and therefore lighter to carry.

      This is almost always the answer. Logistics is what wins wars. If you can carry more ammo and stack more in a truck than your enemy, you’re in a good spot.

          • The_Walkening [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            80k PSI, made for a rifle designed by the lowest bidder

            (The lowest bidder in this case being Sig Sauer, the company that brought cops and security guards everywhere a gun that just kinda goes off sometimes.)

        • Tunnelvision [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The standard issue length of barrel is going to be 13inches with that thing which makes it worse lmfao it’s the f-35 of rifles.

          Edit: it also comes stock with a suppressor which also makes it worse.