This is the best picture I could find after a few minutes of searching, but whenever I see pictures or video of our soldiers handling their rifles, they have the butt on top of their shoulder, instead of against their shoulder.

Why is this?

11/18/2005 4:46:57 PM

they're not actually shooting, it looks like they're just using the scope

11/18/2005 4:51:32 PM

well, when you're shooting a rifle, the entire buttstock doesn't go in your shoulder. part of it tends to stick up.

furthermore, if you're using a 3-point "tactical" sling, it kinda naturally hangs that way sometimes



like that



those aren't definitive answers...those are my guesses.

11/18/2005 4:54:08 PM

I've seen them shooting like this on CNN.

But even so, why even hold it like this when not firing? Do the sights most of them have nowadays necessitate it?

^ The sling idea sounds reasonable.

But it's definitely not how I've ever seen anyone else hold a rifle. Only the bottom corner of the butt is touching their shoulder. Has no one noticed this?



[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 4:54:53 PM

if they had a round that kicked instead of a .223 they wouldn't hold them like that- well, maybe once

11/18/2005 5:07:01 PM

Maybe it allows them to draw their rifle quicker?

They clearly don't have to lower their head this way, and there's only about two inches' difference between having their rifle slung and having their rifle on a target.

11/18/2005 5:14:08 PM

it either low or high ready...I mean I can't say for sure b/c I don't know what they are doing in the pic, but it appears that they are either providing cover or preparing to provide cover. The person to the left looks like he is just resting for a moment, the person on the right looks like he is sighted in on something (as it seems the person kneeling has also done)

11/18/2005 5:19:11 PM

hold the rifle like that effectively shortens it and makes it more maneuverable in CQB situations. The M16 is rather long and large and not cutout to be the most effective weapon for close quarters work. Since most Marines and Soldiers don't have too much choice of weapons they have to make due with what they are given.

11/18/2005 5:25:08 PM

Yeah, I was about to say it's better for CQB. That's why the M-4 has become that much more popular than the "musket" M-16--it's difficult to find M-16s in active units now.

11/18/2005 6:14:11 PM

i served, b.

11/18/2005 6:32:45 PM

^^in the Army. the USMC still has M-16s all over the place.

11/18/2005 8:06:13 PM

^That's cuz you guys are poor. And you're Marines - ya'll are supposed to be the most hardcore - why do we give you rifles in the first place? Why not just a rusty spoon?

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 9:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 9:59:03 PM

A local recruiter told me that they use the .223 b/c it will injure a guy instead of kill him, and then it takes 2 guys to carry the injured guy off the field, so you just took 3 men off the field instead of 1..

and he said it tumbles upon impact (not before, that's a myth), so it does lots of damage upon impact...

obviously it will kill too, just saying

[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:13 PM. Reason : yep]

11/18/2005 10:13:01 PM

more or less all military rounds tumble. A so called FMJ bullet still has a hollow nose to one extent or another to make it stable in flight. Remove the spin and it flips to go but end first

11/18/2005 10:18:57 PM

Quote :

"they use the .223 b/c it will injure a guy instead of kill him"

That's what an Army friend told me, but I really doubt that this was considered when choosing a caliber. You aren't going to sell a weapon to a general with "Hey! It won't kill your enemy!"

Considering what the M16 is and what the M14 was, I'm sure recoil, light-weight, rate of fire, etc... was a much bigger consideration.


[Edited on November 18, 2005 at 10:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2005 10:45:49 PM

How much does each weigh (meaning M16 and M14)?

11/18/2005 11:25:14 PM

the move from full size (7.62) to carbine size (5.56/.223) rounds was due to the need for a lighter amunition. The rifle itself is nto realy a lighter gun, especialy not after modern addons. The point was to be able to cary more shots per soldier without increasing the weight of the basic load. The need for a midsize round (6.8) still exists, thus why we are moving ot include that in our system. A 5.56 does not have the same range or penetration that a larger round does. Cover, capable of stopping a 5.56 round, often becoems concealment only when dealing with 7.62 rounds.

11/18/2005 11:38:01 PM

True but a .223 round is still a really nasty round. Because of it's light weight, it is really fast and flat shooting. Plus a .223 round can hit bones and deflect in the body causing a lot of trauma.

11/19/2005 12:48:02 AM

yeah a good 7.62 can shoot through a tree on some occasions, good luck getting a 5.56 to do that. but yeah basically the switch was made to allow the average soldier to carry more rounds of ammo. the M4, while still a good wepaon actually is even less powerful and accurate than a normal M16 due to shorter barrel therefore less Muzzle volocity.

11/19/2005 12:51:14 AM

Quote :

"more or less all military rounds tumble. A so called FMJ bullet still has a hollow nose to one extent or another to make it stable in flight. Remove the spin and it flips to go but end first"

FMJs don't have hollow points

11/19/2005 12:52:06 AM

hollow points are against the geneva convention.

11/19/2005 12:54:07 AM

No they aren't

11/19/2005 1:10:12 AM

Bullets with an air cavity in the nose have a center of mass further back in the projectile than one without this void. This adds to acuracy, and casues MORE cases of yaw or tumbling once the bullet destablizes. 5.56 amunition of the type the us military uses tends to yaw, then break in half at the crimp groove (cannelure) and fragment, thus casing mroe damage than expected from a FMJ. In fact, the match ammo used by US troops in the SPR system is loaded with Sierra Matchkings. The Matchking, like its cousin the Sierra Gameking, is a BTHP design. True, the open tip of the bullet is small, and a human hair MAY fit in, but it loosk like a FMJ at casual glance. However, it preforms MUCH better than a non HP design.

Most, if nto all, military 'ball' amunition has a void in the core, hidden by the outer jacket. This means that it has a flattened tip on the lead or steel core. This provides the reward shift of center of mass as discussed above.

11/19/2005 5:41:40 AM

no im pretty sure they are

11/19/2005 7:35:53 AM

The 1899 Hague Convention and 1998 International Criminal Court both prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body. The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits the use of arms, projectiles or material capable of causing unnecessary suffering, a more ambiguous statement. The 4th GC ok'd the use of hollow point ammo in anti-terrorist missions, where the agitators are without sanction of any state or body. the U.S. signed the 4th GC, but wasn't a part of 1899 H.Conv. and refused to join the ICC.

11/19/2005 8:08:41 AM

^^ can you post a link that documents that? It goes against everything I have read. I have a file and a fmj round, but i dont have time to file it off to see whats in there. Matchkings are HP for a totally different reason.

11/19/2005 8:09:01 AM

And the M4 still has a pretty high muzzle velocity...approximately 3000 ft/sec

11/19/2005 9:12:47 AM

Quote :

"(1) Low Ready Position. The butt of the weapon is placed firmly in the pocket of the shoulder with the barrel pointed down at a 45-degree angle. This position is the safest carry position. It should be used by the clearing team while inside the room, except when actually entering and clearing. (2) High, Ready Position. The butt of the weapon is held under the armpit, with the barrel pointed slightly up, keeping the front sight assembly under the line of sight but within the gunner's peripheral vision. To engage a target, the gunner pushes the weapon out as if to bayonet the target. When the weapon leaves the armpit, he slides it up into the firing shoulder. This technique is used when moving in a single file. "

11/19/2005 10:40:16 AM

Quote :

"No they aren't"

for a captain you dont know shit

11/19/2005 10:47:48 AM

Quote :

"Age : 18 "

11/19/2005 10:56:49 AM

some one cant pick up extreme sarcasm....look at his screen name for fucks sake

11/19/2005 11:02:14 AM

Those international laws (that I am aware of) are contained in the 1899 Hague Conventions (which the USA did not sign), the 1907 Hague Conventions (which the USA did sign), and the 1977 addendum to the 1949 Geneva Convention (which the USA did not sign). So as far as the US is concerned, the Geneva Convention does not ban hollowpoints.

11/19/2005 11:36:12 AM

who fucking cares, China is going to rule the world regardless of what rounds we use

11/19/2005 12:19:58 PM

Quote :

"Maybe it allows them to draw their rifle quicker? They clearly don't have to lower their head this way, and there's only about two inches' difference between having their rifle slung and having their rifle on a target. "

thats it
the reason you hold your rifle so high on your shoulder is one, so you don't have to dip your head as much and if ever try it it actually seems to sit better like that.

11/19/2005 12:35:40 PM

for you who think a .223 wont kill, my lil bro shot a 180 pound deer today, which is about the average size of a soldier or close to it, at about 80 yards and it ran a total of 15 feet. Its a powerful round, just so much speed you dont even know what happens when you get hit

11/19/2005 9:20:28 PM

shooting a deer with a .223 is irresponsible in my opinion.

sure, it can kill a deer, and do it pretty cleanly sometimes. still, I think you owe it to your quarry to use something with enough power that it doesn't take a perfect shot to kill it quickly.


and the thing about the round tumbling in flight is completely untrue. no rifles shoot bullets that tumble in flight.

and tumbling bullets (like if they are deflected by something) make a very distinctive sound. ask anyone who's ever been in the pits on a rifle range.

11/19/2005 9:39:57 PM

are you serious, he has killed 4 deer this year with it already, none of them running more than 15 yards...my dad shot one with it on thursday around 150 yards out and dropped him in his tracks...if you cant make a good shot then dont shoot, thats the way we learned to hunt

11/19/2005 9:44:07 PM

yeah, i agree in that you shouldn't risk bad shots. i wouldn't take even take a risky shot with my 7mm REM. however, i also believe in having a little bit of an insurance policy. i read an article in a hunting magazine about using hot .22s for hunting deer, and after trying it out on their own, their verdict was that it's marginal, and even then only when using proper bullets and staying within 100-150 yds.

11/19/2005 9:50:33 PM

The weapon shoots flat, effective range is 500 yards. The bullet is designed to shoot at a very high velocity and tumble when it hits flesh. This creates a much larger wound channel, equivelent to a hit from a larger projectile. There is less recoil, and the weapon can be made lighter. There is also less muzzle climb, giving better consecutive shot accuracy.

11/19/2005 9:51:16 PM

Isn't using something that small illegal?

Why the hell wouldn't you just use a larger bullet?

^ oic, just in case you need to switch it to full auto when the deer gang up on you?



[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2005 9:56:16 PM

i think the legality depends on where you're at.

11/19/2005 9:56:41 PM

I was referring to the Army's change from the 7.62mm/.308 standard to the 5.56mm/ .223 cartridge. Anyone who has ever been in the service knows the M16A1 had full auto, whereas the now standard M16A2 and M4 rifles have only a semi and three round burst mode. As for deer hunting, I think that a larger caliber rifle is probably more desirable to lessen suffering of the animal. I don't think many serious deer hunters use .223 rounds for hunting. If anything, they are more suited for varmint hunting, such as for prairie dogs.

11/19/2005 10:05:17 PM

I've heard of people using .22Mag for deer. Just whatever you feel most comfortable with I reckon

11/19/2005 10:09:31 PM

.22 mag is completely out of the question for deer, in my opinion. that's fucking stupid.

11/19/2005 10:11:36 PM

yeah...i've heard a game warden say you should never use .22 caliber for hunting deer...

even though there is no restriction on rifle caliber or type for deer hunting..he just said he would never recommend it

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 10:14 PM. Reason : yep]

11/19/2005 10:12:33 PM

^^^^ Hah, ok.

I remember in high school I had a class with two kids who would spotlight hunt with a regular .22.

Even back then I was all like

[Edited on November 19, 2005 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2005 10:13:16 PM

I don't think it is out of the question. If it works for them, I see no problem with it.

11/19/2005 10:14:41 PM

it's physically impossible for it to "work for them". it's just not enough power to cleanly and quickly kill deer consistently.

unless you're head shooting them.

you are obligated to the animals you hunt to not half-ass it.

11/19/2005 10:18:31 PM

Quote :

"you are obligated to the animals you hunt to not half-ass it."

11/19/2005 10:29:01 PM

They aren't half-assing it. They drop the deer. It's not like they are going out there and plinking at them.

11/19/2005 10:35:39 PM