Looks good.

Cross-posted from GunPundit.com

U.S. Army Spc. Peter Hurlock qualifying with the M16 in Korea. April 14, 2009. (U.S. photo by Staff Sgt. Christophe D. Paul/Released)

A couple of posts by C.J. Chivers:

How Reliable Is the M-16 Rifle?

and

The M-16 Argument Heats Up, Again

Good overall views of the issue, though the increasing use of 77-grain Mk 262 ammunition with the Special Forces and the poor showing in US Army dust chamber tests against a trio of piston guns were not mentioned.

Also, he writes about the M855 not “fragmenting” as well as the M193. Didn’t he probably mean “tumbling”? Though they do sometimes fragment, I thought that was not the design intent.

Anyway, it’s nice to see decent coverage of this issue where it might get a little more visibility.

This story has been in the news lately: US Troops Outnumber Taliban 12-1

First of all, US troops don’t outnumber the Taliban 12-1, it’s all NATO and Afghan forces combined that, according to this report, outnumber the Taliban fighters 12-1.

Secondly, as far as I can tell it’s just counting active Taliban militants, not any of the support network. So if they want to provide a meaningful number, it would be better to only count NATO and Afghan combatants.

Third, as the story does point out, two-thirds of the NATO/Afghan number are Afghan military and police, many of which are woefully under-trained and ill-equipped.

Finally, they’re probably not interested in a meaningful number, anyway. They’re probably looking to spread the idea that there are already so many troops in Afghanistan that it’s pointless to send more just because the military wants them.

For all the talk about “the Surge” in Iraq, it was the shift of tactics and the increasing capabilities and use of the Iraqi forces that made the largest difference.

As long as the Taliban types can keep running into Pakistan to rest and re-arm, things are going to be really tough no matter what the ratio is.

Not at all what happened
USS Ramage (DDG 61) firing a 5-inch gun in 2008.

Destroyer accidentally fires on Polish port

Three 7.62 rounds from an M240 machine gun equals “fired on Polish port.”

The crew of the destroyer Ramage was doing “routine maintenance” to the ship in the port of Gdynia when a sailor inadvertently fired the burst from one of the warship’s M240 machine guns, the official said.

Thankfully, no one was hurt.

But if you think this headline is bad, check out this Russian headline:

US destroyer shells Polish shore

Rooskie journalism hasn’t lost a step.

5.56 NATO Dimensions

Steve at The Firearm Blog notes British soldiers also complaining about 5.56mm NATO

In the Telegraph:

A survey of more than 50 servicemen who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers ‘tailed off’ after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.

This seems to make sense and be perfectly reasonable. After all, our Special Forces found out pretty much the same thing in 2001. A lot of them switched to the heavier Mk 262 from the M855 green tip.

But then there’s:

Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.

If they’re trying to argue that AKs firing 7.62 Russian are outshooting guys with 5.56mm SA80 rifles, they’re going to have to do a lot of convincing. Since they use the term “machine gun”, maybe they mean the 7.62×54mm used in the PK-series. But then they’re arguing apples and oranges.

Yes, the 5.56 leaves some things to be desired. Particularly out of shorter barrels.

Yes, a heavier intermediate round such as the 6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel would probably do better in a wider range of circumstances, particularly at longer ranges.

Yes, full size rounds like the 7.62×51 fired from a full-length rifle pack quite a wallop.

But let’s not whine about 5.56 at medium to long range and then extol the 7.62 Russian or medium machine gun rounds in the media.

Happened to notice this story on Yahoo by Lindsay Robertson: Taylor Lautner’s Shirtless Pics: A Hollywood Double Standard?

Remember the huge uproar in April 2008, when 15-year-old Miley Cyrus appeared in “Vanity Fair” wrapped in a sheet, with her right shoulder and the top of her back visible, implying that, under the sheet, she wasn’t wearing a shirt?…

Now, with the premiere of his movie, “The Twilight Saga: New Moon,” less than a month away, magazines, websites, and TV are blanketed with images of 17-year-old star Taylor Lautner, shirtless and showing off the body he trained for months to perfect for the role. And yet, none of the cultural critics who turned Miley’s photos into a full-blown “scandal” have said a word about the sexualization of Taylor, who, at 17, is just two years older than Miley was during her “scandal” and is also a minor. So, does Hollywood have a double standard?

I had to check again to make sure that Taylor Lautner was a guy. He is, and I think that the clear answer is “Yes, there are definitely different standards when it comes to males and females without shirts on. Duh.”

What a shocking discovery.

Now at First Things.

Kids from the Ron Clark Academy sing a song promoting health care reform on CNN:

Should Murdoc be troubled by this or just embarrassed?

UPDATE: IRS Made Errors in Stimulus Payments to 400,000 Taxpayers

Via Instapundit who writes BUT DON’T WORRY, THEY’LL HANDLE HEALTH CARE JUST FINE

Tigerhawk:

A few clowns shout at a “tea party” and the media starts worrying about the resurgent Klan, but the left literally attacks the police at the G20 protests and nobody says anything.

Via Instapundit.

UPDATE: LOL! Get a load of this video forwarded to MO by a reader:

Nice surplus store BDUs.

UPDATE 2: More info on this HERE. Apparently these BDU guys are some sort of G-20 “tactical response team” and the guy they nabbed was accused of vandalism. Not military or police. Probably cheap contractors.

This was the lead item on my Yahoo! home page today: Why Michelle Obama’s Hair Matters

Murdoc’s initial reactions was “It doesn’t matter.”

After reading about why it does, Murdoc has revised his reaction to “It REALLY doesn’t matter.”

Without getting too deep into it, Jenee Desmond-Harris of Time thinks it matters because hair is so important to black women. And therefore it matters enough to warrant press coverage.

You know, if Murdoc wrote something like that on his little site, he’d be instantly labeled a clueless white guy with dumb stereotypes and probably a racist. But in the pages of Time it’s deep insight.

If Michelle Obama’s hair style really matters, it’s over for America. Luckily for us all, it doesn’t matter.