Me and My M-14

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Did you ever check out the suicide rates for soldiers deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? Add smiley face here. I don't suppose you're actually one of them?

You're cetainly capturing the drama and agenda of the news article you read, but maybe it would be more useful for you to provide the actual statistics and let people decide for themselves if it means absolutely anything, or more importantly, what it has to do with smiley faces and pictures of M14's.

Veteran suicide rate is approximately 20 in 100,000, American civilian suicide rate is 10 in 100,000.

[Battlefront.com]

On topic - a friend of mine in the Lithuanian Special Forces sent me a link to some pics of Lithuanian honor guards and parade formations using M-14s as their "display" weapon. G3s are apparently used in training, G-36s are used in the field.

Dorosh was, no doubt, referring to Lee's comment of "funny" about taking the life of another Human being. Perhaps Dorosh should have chosen PTSD to reference instead of suicides, even though current suicide rates are at a 26 year high (looked it up for another reason yesterday). Meaning, it might be "funny" to someone who hasn't had to take someone's life, perhaps not "funny" to someone who has had his entire life altered in a negative way as a result of doing so. Some people can handle it better than others, but it's pretty clear that overall Human Beings were not designed to think of killing as "funny".

Just a guess

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent guess.

Given the number of professional soldiers who come to these forums - indeed, are on the beta team and contributing constructively to the project on a daily basis (I am not one of them) - I wouldn't go so far as saying we (collectively, on the forum) are "trivializing" war. But silly commentary on photos really doesn't add much to the discussion and treads close.

The dude's name isn't even Jacobsen, anyhow.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh was, no doubt, referring to Lee's comment of "funny" about taking the life of another Human being. Perhaps Dorosh should have chosen PTSD to reference instead of suicides, even though current suicide rates are at a 26 year high (looked it up for another reason yesterday). Meaning, it might be "funny" to someone who hasn't had to take someone's life, perhaps not "funny" to someone who has had his entire life altered in a negative way as a result of doing so. Some people can handle it better than others, but it's pretty clear that overall Human Beings were not designed to think of killing as "funny".

Just a guess

Steve

I personally didn't see a direct connection where Lee found that taking another human life was in and of itself some level of "funny." A couple of you may be creating a connection there that may not exist, given that we grant him the benefit of the doubt.

As far as the caption itself goes - I see a quote that perfectly highlights the apparent demeanor and attitude of the subject pictured. For what it's worth, I do find the caption to be funny.

So here's what I find interesting in this situation - Person A is a guy that has devoted his life's work to deriving entertainment and profit out of the simulation, as we're saying, of "taking the life of another human being." Person B is the guy who partakes in said entertainment, possibly on a daily basis, possibly in a moment of (natural) human weakness laughing out loud when a 500 pound polygonal bomb erases the "lives" of a dozen or so electronic Syrians. Person C is a guy that innocently posts an image that he finds to contain humour, takes the time to share that humor with others of a like mind, and he's the one that somehow receives a reprimand - and above all things, about suicide rates. Someone will have to do some more explaining for that to make sense to me!

Personally, I don't find fault in any of it, considering I do the same things as person A, B, and C. It's human nature, and as far as I know, we're all human. Who gives a flip!

I'm not sure that I understand the unique significance of the 26 year number. If my math serves, that's roughly the correct time for such a thing to occur as a result of the last major war we had. A new record for a statistically insignificant number is still an insignificant number, is it not?

I suppose the next step is to remind me that it isn't insignificant to the families of those specific statistics. I think we certainly all understand that.

[ December 23, 2007, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[PzKpfwIII]

I suppose I missed the part where Lee found that taking another human life was in and of itself some level of "funny." A couple of you may be creating a connection there that most likely doesn't exist, given that you grant someone the benefit of the doubt.

If you want pick literal gnat**** out of pepper, be anyone's guest. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I agree with the other posts beginning with Sergei that Lee's juvenile, sophomoric comments reflect poorly on the general level of intelligence of the board and his idiotic childish rantings make the place smell like a Day of Defeat clan.

As far as the caption itself goes - I see a quote that perfectly highlights the apparent demeanor and attitude of the subject pictured. For what it's worth, I find the caption funny.

That says far more about you than it does about the subject. Anyone with an elementary understanding of photography, including the simple experience of being photographed one's self, knows that facial expressions caught on film are often not at all reflective of the subject's actual thoughts, feelings or indeed even their demeanor at the time of photography.

Besides, as pointed out, his name isn't Jacobson.

But wait! Let's look at the *real* humour in this situation - Person A is a guy that has devoted his life's work to deriving entertainment and profit out of the simulation, as you say, of "taking the life of another human being." Person B is the guy who partakes in said entertainment, possibly on a daily basis, possibly in a moment of (natural) human weakness laughing out loud when a 500 pound polygonal bomb erases the "lives" of a dozen or so electronic Syrians.

Huh?

Person C is a guy that innocently posts an image that he finds to contain humour, takes the time to share that humor with others of a like mind,

I think the point here is that it isn't a Day of Defeat clan, and his juvenile commentary isn't appreciated; if you haven't grasped that yet, you're about as far off base with this comment as you were with the rest...

and he's the one that somehow receives a reprimand

I see no evidence of a reprimand in the moderator's post. Mocking and derision for the last couple of pages, but far less than he deserves.

- and above all things, about suicide rates. You guys will have to do some more explaining for that to make sense to me.

It's self explanatory, in fact...

Could somebody explain to me the unique significance of the 26 year number? If my math serves, that's roughly the correct time for such a thing to occur as a result of the last major war we had.

...you just answered your own question, didn't you.

[molotov_billy]

You know what, nevermind. I was actually looking at one specific post that Lee made, the one with the caption, and hadn't read any of his other stuff. I won't touch that one with a 10 foot pole. For clarification, my points were about the specific M-14 image with the "funny" quote.

Originally posted by PzKpfwIII:

That says far more about you than it does about the subject. Anyone with an elementary understanding of photography, including the simple experience of being photographed one's self, knows that facial expressions caught on film are often not at all reflective of the subject's actual thoughts, feelings or indeed even their demeanor at the time of photography.

I don't know the guy, nor do I know his actual thoughts at the moment, nor do I know his real demeanor or what specific lives he has or hasn't taken. I find humor in the correlation of the quote and the perceived information that the photo provides me. It's the only concrete information that the thing provides, and it's all we have to react upon. I don't conduct research before I judge whether or not something is funny - humor isn't a decision, it's a natural human reaction. I wouldn't find fault in anyone for finding humor in the juxtaposition of those two elements.

Besides, as pointed out, his name isn't Jacobson.

Why does it matter what his name is?

Huh?

I was relating that I found it interesting for two specific people who create and derive entertainment out of the simulation of killing people to find fault with someone who found a mildly morbid caption to contain humor. The important follow up to that (which you didn't quote) was that I didn't find fault in any of it, because we're all human and we generally all have the same knee-jerk reactions to specific stimuli. Take out the horrible, frightening, and digusting things in war, and boys will find entertainment of all types, even humor.

I see no evidence of a reprimand in the moderator's post.

I agree. I wasn't referring to Steve, if that's what you mean.

It's self explanatory, in fact...

My brain isn't as capable, I suppose. Please humor me

...you just answered your own question, didn't you.

I don't find unique significance in the notion that specific harrowing experiences increase suicide rates. I didn't understand what it was specifically telling me about comments on the subject from Dorosh and myself.

Layers to a cake - this all from a fellow who chose to name himself after a specific type of human invention which was designed and refined to be a more efficient killing machine than anything that came before it.

[ December 23, 2007, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[MiB]

Guys, I think we just found out why our sniper units can't hit anything.

"You're a designated marksman, now!"

"Uh, why?"

"'cause your M16 broke and all we have to replace it are M14s!"

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Lee:

Would it be churlish to ask what the man holding the gun thinks? Because his name is not Jacobson.

[J.R.]

Please, could all have the good taste to keep our political and sociological opinions private (or air them in a more appropriate location)?

I was enjoying this thread...

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:

No M16's in a hardcore sim modeling a major war involving the US army is surprising. Whatever though.

It's not surprising in that the actual US Army is not using them anymore; as stated, neither is Canada. UK, too, went to the SA80 ages ago - no one seems to be using full size battle rifles any more. Engagement ranges are shorter, and I suppose the corollary is that artillery is smarter for reaching out to longer ranges without excessive collateral damage? Dunno, but if the real Army isn't using them, makes sense not to see it in a game. </font>

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:

No M16's in a hardcore sim modeling a major war involving the US army is surprising. Whatever though.

It's not surprising in that the actual US Army is not using them anymore; as stated, neither is Canada. UK, too, went to the SA80 ages ago - no one seems to be using full size battle rifles any more. Engagement ranges are shorter, and I suppose the corollary is that artillery is smarter for reaching out to longer ranges without excessive collateral damage? Dunno, but if the real Army isn't using them, makes sense not to see it in a game. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

I guess it would be different if I trained extensivly on them but I never liked bullpup rifles. Full length rifles just seemed more stable and better ballanced. But, like I said, if I used one regularly I would have gotten used to it.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Lee]

More cool shots of the M14 with our troops.

[Capt. Toleran]

As the original poster of this thread, I thought I would add in some news to those who like FPS (sorry if this belongs in the general forum, but it is relevant to my original thread and the weapon system) --

Call of Duty 4 (COD 4) has Both the M-14 and M-21 available as weapons, both of which are excellently simulated (in my amateur opinion, expert/experienced opinions are welcome) and can be used to great effect against AI and human opponents alike. If anything, COD 4 has made me an even bigger fan of both systems (especially when I shoot someone through a wall at 300 yards).

On a more general note, the game itself is excellent all around, and has given me (already experienced with modern weaponry in games but not real life) a greater appreciation for the weapons involved. This game complements Shock Force for those that like to try to simulate what being in the middle of modern combat might be like (scary). It is probably my favorite game of the year.

['Card]

I tend to think more about caliber than I do the specific platform (meaning the gun).

Many many moons ago when I was "being there" and "doing that" I was a big fan of both the 5.56mm (rifle) round and the 9mm (pistol) round. I liked being able to carry more ammo and dump more of it downrange in a shorter period of time.

Now I'm older and wiser and a much better shot than I was back in the day when I actually needed to worry about that sort of thing for other than academic purposes. But if I was going into Indian Country tomorrow, I'd strongly prefer a 7.62mm rifle and a .45ACP pisol.

Why? Because I hit what I aim at.

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy,

I was relating that I found it interesting for two specific people who create and derive entertainment out of the simulation of killing people to find fault with someone who found a mildly morbid caption to contain humor.

Well, just to throw in another curveball... I'm more of a pacifist than anything else. Wargames should be exercises of the brain, not expressions of patriotism or bloodlust. A certain degree of "war is cool" is understandable, but like everything there is a line that can be crossed. Also like everything, not everybody is going to agree what that line is.

Back on topic!

Sgtmuhammad,

I guess it would be different if I trained extensivly on them but I never liked bullpup rifles. Full length rifles just seemed more stable and better ballanced. But, like I said, if I used one regularly I would have gotten used to it.

Another thing that I've seen as a complaint is the ergonomics of changing a magazine. But I also think it falls into "get used to it" and there's no problem thing. Balance, however, is a less subjective issue, though how much of an issue it is I don't know.

It is also interesting that the two primary bullpups in mass production have had major teething problems over their years.

Steve

[flamingknives]

In the case of the L85, however, that has nothing to do with the bullpup part of the design, just shoddy manufacturing and insufficiently robust design.

[luderbamsen]

After the Falklands War, one conclusion most agreed upon was the need for troops to carry more ammo. Which meant switching their 7.62x51mm SLR's for 5.56x45mm L85A1's.

If anything, accuracy actually improved because of the inherent accuracy of the L85A1 and the standard issue 4x SUSAT sight.

Apart from the inherent issues with a bullpup rifle, the problems were mainly caused by poor design and shoddy workmanship (as flamingknives mentioned).

Basically, there is no going back to a 7.62x51mm caliber general issue small arm: Weapon and ammo is too big and too heavy. It still has merits in particular scenarios or as specialist weaponry though.

['Card]

You know (speaking as a card-carrying, full-blown, rabid American right-wing whackjob gun-nut), it's always been a source of frustration to me that no one has managed to fully capitalize on the bullpup concept. It seems like such a good idea on paper that it's genuinely surprising no one has really been able to utilize it to produce a consistent, low-maintenance, reliable and accurate platform - at least not for the 7.62mm round.

[luderbamsen]

If I were to venture an uneducated guess, I'd say that the future of the bullpup rifle as a general issue military small arm depend very much on the ammunition.

Caseless, semi-combustible and case-telescoped ammunition, coupled with a different (i.e. not the usual reciprocating bolt) action and firing a high velocity/low weight (5.56x45mm-ish) projectile (where barrel length is a major issue) is probably where we'll end up. Eventually.

Speciality weapons (sniper rifles e.c.t) is a different ballgame, of course.

I wouldn't be surprised if it coincided with mission-programmable airbursting munitions (in 20-40mm caliber) and associated weapons being issued.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Well, just to throw in another curveball... I'm more of a pacifist than anything else. Wargames should be exercises of the brain, not expressions of patriotism or bloodlust. A certain degree of "war is cool" is understandable, but like everything there is a line that can be crossed. Also like everything, not everybody is going to agree what that line is.

Certainly, the line is fuzzy. So in this case - an explicit goal and end effect of your game is "fun" - and of course tied to making money on the thing. There are specific concessions made to the simulation side of things to make the game "cool", "fun", "enjoyable", whatever you would like to call it. To me, it isn't any different than the image that Lee posted - and of course he didn't even make the thing, simply passing it along.

[Battlefront.com]

Luberbamsen,

Caseless, semi-combustible and case-telescoped ammunition, coupled with a different (i.e. not the usual reciprocating bolt) action and firing a high velocity/low weight (5.56x45mm-ish) projectile (where barrel length is a major issue) is probably where we'll end up. Eventually.

Absolutely! I've done quite a bit of research into caseless ammo recently. The ultimate is to combine the benefits of a bullpup with caseless. Meaning, the trigger assembly is forward of the breach, the ammo is caseless. This gives you plenty of ammo at the ready, excellent barrel:total length ratio, and balance. The G-11 shows the benefits of this type of weapon once the kinks are worked out of it.

Steve

['Card]

Plus with caseless ammo you don't have to worry about one of the bullpup configuration's biggest problems - specifically, having a bunch of hot brass flying right into the side of the shooter's face.