Top 9 most important military small arms cartridge calibers

I am absolutely positive that this list will be controversial and will be completely different from everyone else’s list. This is not a list of which round is better than the other, these cartridges are listed by historical importance, not combat effectiveness. Although in some cases combat effectiveness is why it was so important. Also, this list is based off of my pool of knowledge, and history as how I was taught it, which is out of an American textbook. I’m quite sure someone off in Switzerland, France or elsewhere has a cartridge or two that they would add to the list.

.223 (5.56 NATO) -- Love it or hate it, this is the standard issue infantry caliber of almost the entire free world. Then half of the rest use its Russian-developed knock off, the 5.45x39. I made this number one because it is in the forefront in the global war for freedom and democracy. This round is highly accurate and faster than my Uncle Jim at the Golden Corral Buffet. That’s fast.

7.62x39 -- A solid round with plenty of knock-down (though the FMJ is prone to over-penetration), this round is the standard issue to #1’s “rest of the world.” If your country is former communist, or a developing nation, you shoot this round. This round was the one used to promote Soviet-style diplomacy and the expansion of the Soviet empire for decades. Lauded by Kalash Fanboys everywhere.

.30-06 -- This is the round that saved the world from itself...twice. First in the bolt action 1903 Springfield during The Great War, then second in everyone’s favorite rifle, the M1 Garand in WWII.

.303 British -- I have to give this cartridge its dues. Even though it has never been popular outside of Britain and its empire...oh what an empire it was. This round furthered the British empire and fought on the side of freedom in two World Wars.

7.62x54R -- This one was a close one with #4. Maybe a tie. Like #3, and #4, has plenty of whoop ass to resolve any issues you might have with the enemy. One of the oldest cartridge still being used today by a standing military, this cartridge played a huge part in defeating the Nazis in WWII.

9mm Luger (9mm NATO) -- Once again, love it or hate it, this is the standard issue infantry sidearm caliber of...once again...almost the entire free world. It is such a popular round throughout the world it was used by both sides of WWII.

.308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) -- Ballistically similar to #3,#4 and #5, this round has been proving itself on battlefields throughout the world since it’s inception in the 1950s in battle rifles, but is especially popular in machine guns and sniper rifles. Only its newness prevents it from being ranked higher.

.45 ACP -- One of the all time best handgun calibers in terms of stopping power. This one made the list only in part due to the 1911 handgun it is most famous for, but mostly for its use in the Thompson Sub-Machine gun used primarily in WWII and Korea.

7.92x57 (8mm Mauser) -- I debated this one, is it so much an important round, as it is the rifle that is important? I decided to add it to the list at #9. It is the cartridge for the standard issue rifle of the Army that conquered almost all of Europe...twice. That makes it important.

Range time

I'm a little bummed, I'm missing my shooting time. I haven't gone in a couple of weeks and am having withdrawals. I've been hacking up a lung for a couple of weeks now, and since it's been pretty wet and cold, I figured I had better not go. I'm trying to get better since this coming weekend is the early deer season here in Wisconsin. Also, this weekend is the start of pheasant, so next week I'll be hitting that. mmmmm. Can't wait.

Fox News

There has been more and more talk from the Obama administration and other liberal commentators about the Fox News channel being a "wing of the Republican Party," and they've been talking about its lies and inaccuracies. I try to view stuff like this as objectively as possible, which isn't always easy. But whenever they talk on the subject, they almost always bring up O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, or other conservative talk shows. They are not differentiating between the opinion shows, and the news shows. MSNBC and the other news channels have shows on like Chris Matthews with all of his inaccuracies, but why doesn't the left complain about those shows? I have always felt the other news channels were very unfair to Republicans, while easy on Democrats. And, I've always thought Fox News was pretty even handed to all (we're talking news shows, not opinion). According to a study done by the Pew Research Center, I was right. The report says:

... a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points.

So there you have it. Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

Arrogance and the short memories of Europeans

OK, I'm ticked. I was reading the comments postings in response to a British piece criticizing B.O. being given the Nobel peace prize. I'm DEFINITELY not ticked about the piece, but about some of the comments. The last comment, coming from a Norwegian I suspect, since not a lot of Americans and non-elfs have the name Olef, said (in part):

"As much as admire the man and what he appears to stand for, Obama is still the president of one of the most aggressive martial nation on the planet, which to date has refused to sign the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty, which aims to eradicate a scourge, which has maimed and killed millions of innocent children, a terror which is still ongoing every day. This treaty has been ratified by 133 countries, but the US has to date refused to do so.

The intention of closing down the most hideous and unlawful institution devised by a western nation since WWII, the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, is laudable, but has yet to be accomplished....

...If you want to name heads of governments in the cause of peace, France’s Jacques Chirac, and Germany’s Schroeder would be more deserving, for not joining in the Iraq adventure, but most of all Canada’s Jean Chretien, who must have been under enormous pressure from a nation, which then counted for 87% of Canada’s foreign trade."

There are TONS of things I could respond with on this, I could get into the whole, "the US saved European butts more than once, and blah, blah, blah," but I'm not going to do that. The one thing that I haven't head anyone bring up yet, on this subject of the US and allies going into Iraq and Afghanistan is:

If Europeans hadn't felt the desire to colonize everyone and everywhere they could get their grubby little mitts on, and subsequently leave those areas in such states of utter chaos, the US wouldn't have to get involved in those areas. Look at the two areas primarily under European oppression: Africa and the Middle East. Look at the conditions those areas have been in since the Europeans conquered them, then left. The poverty, the fighting, the identity conflicts, I could go on and an about the problems of those areas, but the bottom line is that those problems arose because of European intervention and arrogance. European greed and the need to oppress free people left those areas the way they are.

So perhaps instead of criticizing the "evil US," Europeans like Olef should be thanking us for once again trying to fix the problems that Europe has perpetrated on the world.

Obama the Nobel Peace Prize recipient

Another great commentary from a Brit about B.O. I'm not surprised at him being given (not earned or awarded, but given) the Nobel, look at some of the recent winners; primarily Al Gore for his movie about global warming. What a sham. Some of the comments made by readers are great also. "Nobel: from leftists, to leftists for being leftist". Also, "like giving a Harvard degree to a 5 year old on his 12th day of kindergarden."

Here is the link:

Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize - Times Online

Shared via AddThis

Guns and Utopia

Late last week I was on a message board discussing the Russian arms maker, Izhmash, who going out of business. It was one of the big three network news websites, so needless to say, all but me on the message board were very liberal. One such individual made the comment that they wished all American firearm manufacturers would go out of business, to which everyone, except me, heartily agreed. I quickly pointed out that if that happened, it wouldn’t be good for the only segment of our economy that was actually doing good right now, and that it wouldn’t be good for the millions of law abiding Americans who legally purchase their firearms for legal pursuits. Nor would it be good for our military and law enforcement, who need guns to protect us. I didn’t go back to the message board after that, but I’m sure the follow up comment was something to the effect of, “well if there were no guns, our military and police wouldn’t need guns, and wouldn’t need to protect us.” I’ve heard this argument before from the far “non-thinking” left-wing.

Let me address this idea of a no-gun utopia. Say, just for argument’s sake, that all US firearm manufactures really did go out of business, and authorities were actually able to confiscate every single gun in America. Literally, every single gun. No guns left. As a side note let me point out that the left are proponents of completely opening our border with Mexico, allowing anyone and everyone in, and complete amnesty for those illegals already here. Let me point out -- primarily to the left -- that with the measures you are proposing to freely let people in, **read my lips** you could not keep guns out of our country. They would come in. We are not Britain, Australia, Cayman, or any other place that has a no gun policy. We don’t live on an island. While monitoring guns into your country is hard even if you are surrounded on all sides by water, and the only way in is air, or maybe boat. It is IMPOSSIBLE if entrance into your country can be had over land. No way. Can’t be done. So once again, you have a scenario where the only people with the guns are the bad people. Except in this lefty scenario, even the police and military don’t have guns.

Now say, hypothetically, that every single firearms manufacturer in the world went out of business, and every single gun in the world was confiscated and destroyed. Not one single gun was left in the world. People will still find away to kill other people (for example, a molotov cocktail is a very simple device, or even an IED), or make weapons to gain power over others. Still, you cannot un-invent something. An individual can make a gun in his or her home. In fact, plans to make homemade guns are all over the internet. The knowledge is still there. Just the same, you can’t un-invent the automobile to prevent vehicular homocide. Or, you can’t un-invent the wheel. The knowledge is still there. People will still make them.

Bottom line: get over it. Guns are here to stay. There is no utopia. Men will kill other men. If one means to do it is gone, we will find another way. It’s time to look at the real problem; the person behind the gun. Why do some people choose to do evil with a gun, while most do not. Look at how many commit DUIs; we don’t try to ban alcohol, but instead try to treat or punish the person behind the alcohol and the wheel. We need to approach guns the same way. God forbid if the bleeding-hearts every want to punish criminals. Instead we have things like early-release and parole. Violent gun crimes should face a “do the time” penalty -- if you get charged with 15 years, then you do fifteen years. The only way you get out early is if you get shanked in jail, then you can leave early on a steel table.

Semper Fi

CNN fact checks SNL to protect their president.

You have to be kidding. CNN decided that a spoof on Saturday Night Live was unfair to President B.O., so they ran a fact-checking piece on it. The CNN segment actually makes themselves look like an SNL spoof, leaving the viewer thinking, "you've got to be kidding me." If anyone still (or has EVER thought) thinks that CNN can be trusted to be unbiased in their coverage (read: love affair) of B.O., they are terrible naive, or just blind. It's funny, yet surprisingly scary, to watch how many times the commentators in this segment say that SNL is "not fair" to the President. Where was CNN during their 8 years of comedy spoofs on President Bush? Or on other Republicans? I guess that was fair, by their standards.

Stuff like this just gets me so angry I feel like slapping people. And I'm not really a big slapper. Not much of a slapper at all, to be honest. In fact, I don't think I've ever slapped anyone. But I feel like marching down to CNN HQ and starting my slapping rampage.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw&feature=player_embedded

Semper Fi

Depressing

First, let me put things in perspective -- there are important things in life, like family, friends, our health, there is are wars going on, people are dying, etc, etc. Then there are things that aren't truly important, like video games, sports, etc. Now that I've clarified that, let me say, watching last night's Monday Night football in which the Packers had to play Brett Favre in a Vikings uniform was the most depressing, worst non-important event of my life. On one hand I wanted the Pack to destroy the Vikes, because the Packers are my boys, I want them to do good, and I hate the Vikings. On the other hand, I wanted Brett to do good, because I love Brett (in a football sense) -- despite all that has happened -- and wanted to see him stick it to Ted Thompson, Packers GM, whom I can't stand, and to Mike McCarthy, Packers head coach, who I think stinks as a coach. But I don't want Brett to do too good, because I don't want him to have a legacy with the Vikings, I want his legacy to be with the Packers. For me the whole game was about contradictions, which left my insides twisted.

Brett has always been an anomaly for me. I have never gotten into the whole celebrity or athlete admiration thing. Except for Brett. I remember being at one of the Packer training camps, and Brett walked by fairly close to where I was. I was standing there in his jersey (as was about half the crowd), but for whatever reason he looked at me, and we actually made eye contact for about 10 seconds. My knees grew weak and I about passed out (not quite, but kind of funny). I felt like a stupid little school girl. I spent my entire adult life growing old with him. To me he was almost like family. So this whole ordeal with getting rid of him and now he being on the Vikings has left me kind of put off by football right now.

Chicago's Olympic loss is Bush's fault. Really, people?

For the better part of 8 years, it seemed that every negative occurrence that happened in the world, and especially in the US, was Bush's fault. Global warming, hurricanes, drought, famine, 9/11 attacks, and pretty much everything else were all things heaped onto his shoulders as his fault. I thought that blame game would eventually dissipate, but I guess not. Now Jesse Jackson, members of the Chicago Olympic bid committee and members of B.O.'s crew all blamed Chicago's loss of the Olympic bid and anti-US sentiment because of Bush. It couldn't just be that Chicago is a crappy city with high rates of violence. And God forbid, maybe the rest of the world doesn't think as highly of B.O. as he thinks of himself. Not everyone in the world views him as the second coming.

Check out the article:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1804170,CST-NWS-olyresent03.article