An Ammo Idea So Good The Army Will Never Use It

“Soldiers currently receive the bulk of 5.56-millimeter ammunition as 10-round clips consolidated in fabric bandoleers that add $7 to $8 to the cost of the packed out M2A1 container. The fabric design also makes automated packaging a labor intensive process.” This according to Dan Klein, an engineer with ARDEC’s (Army Research, Development and Engineering Command) Packaging Division [via packagingdigest.com]. “A bandoleer that holds 120 rounds of 5.56-millimeter ammunition costs $1 to $1.25 each, while the plastic variant will cost much less and hold the same amount. Based on bandoleer production numbers for the next five years, the program could save more than $2 million annually.” Two million? That’s a rounding error! Or life or death . . .

The bandoleer fabric also uses a lot of the available volume in the container that could hold additional ammunition. Replacing it with plastic frees enough space that the number of rounds per container could increase from 840 to 1050.

An additional benefit is ammunition distribution, Klein says. By adding perforations between each 30-round pouch, a Soldier can tear off as much ammunition as necessary for the mission. A Soldier is currently forced to improvise during this situation.

The project has been presented to the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command for user input.

If history is our guide, it’ll be another two years before this idea gets a thumbs-up. And probably not even then.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Or we can just keep the soldiers at home and save a trillion dollars.

    Crazy, huh? I know . . . .

    1. avatar Cyrano says:

      Only if you believe your own math. It took 10 years and a combination of two theaters to equal your trillion dollar number. So care to revise your ideas?

      1. avatar Doug says:

        You just backed up his argument – if we had not been in those two theaters for 10 years, we could have saved a trillion dollars by your own admission.

        1. avatar Aharon says:

          🙂

        2. avatar pat says:

          The wars went fine (as wars go, anyway). It was the occupations, and how they were handled (though, clearly alot of scum terrorists who were flooding in had to meet Allah, no) that pumped up the cost (a pretty penny, but not out of line with what we usually spent on defense GDP wise).

        3. avatar WLCE says:

          “The wars went fine (as wars go, anyway)”

          youre fucking kidding me right?

          1.) Our forces that entered Iraq were far below the recommended troop strength levels. you need to study the Powell doctrine and the strategy that was used that was in direct contradiction to Powells.

          2.) Our Abrams and Bradley armored fighting vehicles were maintenance nightmares and they did a poor job in supporting the infantry (the abrams is optimized for fighting equivalent tanks, but it is poorly equipped to fulfill a function more commonly encountered for tanks: crush barricades, buildings, and entrenched infantry).

          3.) Our airborne forces lacked armor assets and were disproportionately reliant on the individual resolve of soldiers and air strikes.

          4.) we started the war in the first place to find the supposed weapons of mass destruction: They were never found.

          5.) of course there is the occupation…(which can cover a entire book).

          If we are expected to fight a real enemy like Russia, China, or Iran, the US Armed Forces has some serious self-evaluation to do.

      2. avatar TTACer says:

        100,000,000,000 >> 2,000,000

        Wow. That is a lot of zeroes.

        1. avatar Armed Veteran Voter says:

          TTACer,
          100,000,000,000 is One Hundred Billion.
          One Trillion is 1,000,000,000,000.
          and, in $100 bills. looks like this:
          http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

        2. avatar TTACer says:

          1,000,000,000,000/10=100,000,000,000

          It was a response to Cyrano saying that the 1T figure was for 10 years.

      3. avatar Sammy says:

        Math aside. I say keep ’em home, as well. We can’t fight for freedom of others. If they want freedom enough they will gain it for themselves. They may be happy to live under tyrants. Seems 51% of Americans (?) don’t mind. Besides we don’t have the money for expeditions.

        1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

          We really need to bring them home, fix our problems here, such as our wide open borders,etc and then worry about other countries and peoples!!!

        2. avatar pat says:

          It is how you fight wars and why that is the question. Poor occupation strategy and nationbuilding was the problem.

      4. avatar Chris says:

        $1T to wage the wars over 10 years, plus additional care and compensation for the troops after they leave the service, plus the lost generative economic activity of hundreds of thousands of soldiers over a 10 year period plus reduced or lost productivity as they re-enter civilian life, plus lost productivity of family members caring for the children of soldiers serving overseas, plus the disruption to the balance of the labor market when hundreds of thousands of soldiers return home looking for work (over many years of course), plus lost opportunities for domestic innovation and production as design and manufacturing resources are spent on theater-specific engineering, and so on and so forth.

        It’s $1T spent, of mostly borrowed money, a lot of lost or diminished domestic opportunities, and continuing costs as we give the troops the support they deserve in their return to civilian life. When we go to war, there needs to be very solid justification and a plan that is specific and reasonable in its goals, and limited in its scope and duration.

    2. avatar RKBA says:

      Following Ralph’s logic….. Keeping your car in the garage also saves a fortune on gasoline and other maintenance…. Keeping your guns in a safe and never firing them will save you $$$….

      Why even have a Military, Ralph, if your only intention is to keep them at home out of harms way?

      1. avatar OHgunner says:

        Why have a military at home out of harms way?

        How about to protect home? Rain hell on anyone who brings military force within US coastal waters. What good is a military force for protecting our land if they are in Afghaniraqisbeckistan and need to be transported half a world away to be mobilized at home?

        Do you buy a self defense weapon for your house then send it to someone in Mexico? Maybe if you’re a BATFE agent, but barring that possibility its a ridiculous proposition.

        1. avatar pat says:

          There is a need to protect US interests that lay outside US coastal waters….for pete’s sake. Would you allow Iran to shut down the strait of Hormuz? Isolationism went out generations ago as we are all connected and many things affect our self interest. Iraq and Afganistan should odviously have been handled far better than they were (few would argue that) with regards to occupation and nationbuilding.

      2. avatar mountocean says:

        Taking your car out of your garage and guns from your safe is differant than driving through someone else’s garage door and shooting the place up. In some circumstances that might be appreciated and to your benifit, but it’s not the only reason you keep the equipment on hand.

      3. avatar Brad says:

        RKBA – you need to rethink your logic. Because what you are implying is that if we have a military, we should go overseas and use it or not have it at all. I don’t think you mean we should create perpetual conflicts overseas just to exercise our military. Are you?

      4. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        It’s such a pity how most folks here thoroughly revere the founding fathers yet completely ingnore their deep-seated mistrust of standing armies.

        I guess the last century and a half of brainwashing have given the tyrants an easy market.

      5. avatar Ralph says:

        @RKBA, having a military to defend ourselves is a lot different from having an army to go invade other countries. I have guns to defend myself, but that doesn’t mean that I should go shoot up a mosque.

        By your logic, we should be dropping nukes all over the place just because we have them. Does that make sense to you?

    3. avatar Culpeper Kid says:

      Maybe spending the trillion was worth it if we have a few million vets that know how to use firearms and have proved that they pretty much love this country.

      1. avatar Armed Veteran Voter says:

        We are aging. hell, I’m going to be 66 in two weeks!

        The 20 years of military service and exposure to Agent Orange, plus, other injuries, all in the line of duty, curtail my “get up and go”.

        You want patriotism, idealism, enthusiasm, that we have, but, the price we could pay is our pensions, our VA medical care, so, our lives are forfeit!

        Reminds me of the genuine sacrifices made by all who signed the Declaration of Independance, and who forfeited
        their property, families, lives, and fortunes!

        My question is, would it be worth while for my sacrifice, when half of Ameica has forgotten all who preceeded me,
        and sacrificed for our ability to remain free from tyranny?

        The mess we are in, is because half of all Americans became takers, instead of creators, of wealth!

        I have my arms and ammunition, but, can only use them to protect my small homestead, which the banks are not sending help to do! The banks are known to cut and run!

        Stuck in a huge mortgage, with the homestead valued at a third of that mortgage, most Veterans are in the group of homeowners who do NOT default on a mortgage!

        I now have less to lose, but, am clinging to that which is most cherished, my integrity and honor.

        My word is my bond. You won’t get that from this administration, or, a bank.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          Integrity, the one thing that can’t be be taken, but the first thing to many people throw away just to survive one more day.

    4. avatar WLCE says:

      lol try 4 trillion dollars 😀

      and that is a conservative estimate

      http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        It also seems like we’ve pounded the hell out of our combat arms with so many deployments. Certainly got some damn experiences NCOs these days, but it seems like the non-monetary costs, the costs that go beyond Purple Hearts, are starting to show. Hell, on the equipment side, I’ve read the Air Force and Marines are getting concerned about their aircraft due to the sheer number of flight hours they’ve been put through over the past 10 years.

        Mind you, I’m a civilian who can’t serve due to medical reasons, but what I say may be worth exactly what it cost you to read this.

        1. avatar WLCE says:

          we have and our armed forces are beginning to fray, especially the army. many experienced and cream of the crop NCOs and officers are leaving and going into the private sector or PMCs. Now that the PMC goldmine is shrinking, many are just settling for something outside of the armed forces.

          Yes, the aircraft fleet is breaking down simply because operations in the desert considerably shrinks the operational lifecycle of these pieces of equipment.

          The Army and Marine Corps also have thousands of Abrams and Bradley vehicles sitting in depot storage simply because it is not financially feasible to repair them to mission ready status.

          I am not the only soldier that left due to political disillusionment. It took me nearly 20 years to figure that out too. General Smedley Butler also had a lot to say about war being a racket.

          and nonsense. any civilian that recognizes the horrendous cost of american empire has a opinion worth gold since so many are hopelessly ignorant of this.

      2. avatar Air Force TSgt says:

        We still fly planes from the 50’s and 60’s! The Aircraft I crewed today was built when I was -6… that’s our problem.

        1. avatar Gyufygy says:

          How many times can you upgrade a Hercules before they just call it a C-131? What are they up to, J? K?

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          its a amazing thing that we waste hundreds of billions on pursuing the F22 and F35 wet dreams instead of building modernized F15s and F16s with new airframes.

          There is no air force that can counter ours. it is a higher priority to build new aircraft from a perhaps older derivative than it is to seek experimental aircraft using wishful thinking capabilities.

      3. avatar pat says:

        FOUR TRILLION? WTF? Try a liberal fever dream.

        1. avatar pat says:

          Lib professors (from Brown) have agendas. When you use the Butterfly affect (a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and you get a hurricane in New York) in a nebulous way to try to get a preconseived number that furthers your cause, you know to look for a larger and more reputable sourse of info.

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          liberal wet dream? I wish.

          its called calculating the costs incurred plus obligatory costs and interest..which equates anywhere in the ballpark between 2.3-4 trillion.

          This was calculated by a academic group from Brown and Boston Universities among others. Before you decide to label them as “liberal shills” perhaps you are more qualified in government budget and finance…or at least can point to a direction where more qualified people make their assertions.

          “Linda J. Bilmes, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Senior Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, is a leading expert on U.S. budgeting and public finance. Bilmes was Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce during the Clinton administration. She is co-author (with Joseph Stiglitz) of the New York Times bestseller The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (2008). She has written extensively on the cost of war and veterans’ issues, including “Soldiers Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits” (2007). Bilmes is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.”

          http://costsofwar.org/article/who-we-are

          It is utterly laughable how many naively believe the governments statistics as “the truth” simply because your beloved authorities cannot lie (LOL). Our own government cannot even tell the truth about the true unemployment numbers or inflation, nor can they balance their checkbook.

          …and Bilmes is a member of Council on Foreign Relations!!! you know? the bilderberg group shills! but sure….there’s a “liberal” agenda to over inflate the costs of the war to prove a point. ROTFLMAO!!!!

    5. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Whoa now, I distinctly remember hearing every day for the last decade (maybe more – I wasn’t really paying attention before that) from every person in the military or Republican party that if you don’t support spending trillions to murder brown people that pose no threat to us, then you hate America.

      1. avatar pat says:

        Most of the’brown’ (cheap smear of intent by your fellow countrymen) people who were ‘murdered’ were murdered (bombs and shelling to kill civilians) by terrorists (or freedom fighters/insurgents, to you libs). Our soldiers did indeed KILL (big difference) alot of radical islamist terrorists. The wars were good, the occupation….not so good. Dont think anybody supports having spent a large sum of money (less than a Trillion) for nation building.
        You really think we did that as an excuse to ‘murder brown people’?

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          The wars were good, the occupation

          I’m sorry, what? We invaded two countries (one with absolutely no justification whatsoever – the other with very loose justification) because a small number of people committed a minor attack against us (one that we may have known about and allowed to happen, as with Pearl Harbor) and murdered thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Not to mention that the handful that attacked us only did so because we spent decades committing similar acts of terrorism against them.

          When a soldier is invading another country that poses no threat to the US, every person they kill was an act of murder. Hiding behind the “following orders” defense doesn’t change the crime that they committed.

          The goal of the government isn’t simply “murdering brown people”, it’s about vainly trying to create an American Empire by terrorizing any country that doesn’t blindly follow our commands. Follow a different religion than us? That’s a minimum 5 years of rape and murder. Choose a different socio-economic system? That’s another 5. Cultural differences in clothing and marriage laws? Well, your life expectancy just took a huge dive.

          It’s sick that people like you not only support, but try to justify these completely absurd acts of terrorism committed by the US government on a daily basis. Every soldier that has killed a person in war where the country we invaded posed no threat to the US is guilty of murder and should be sentenced accordingly.

        2. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

          So by your logic we should convict soldiers who had no choice in deployment location and fought in self defense? A soldier can write in all the requests he wants to be stationed on that pretty base in Hawaii, but he can’t just say “nah I don’t feel like going to Sandboxistan this tour.” Regardless of whether his deployment is “legal” or not, if someone opens fire on one of our boys, he follows the ROE, shoots back and kills the assailant in defense of himself, that’s not a criminal offense.

        3. avatar WLCE says:

          I dont agree that solders should be prosecuted, simply because the Second Gulf War obtained Congressional Approval.

          Now for the neo-cons of the Bush/Cheney camp? absolutely.

          They deceived the entire world and the checks and balances apparati of our country. They committed impeachable offenses. They committed perjury.

          and that is not even getting into 9/11…

        4. avatar WLCE says:

          so the wars were good?

          how so?

          Was the deception by the Bush administration good? the no-bid contracts good? the abysmal occupation plan good?

          Let me guess, who are completely ignorant of the term “blowback” and are a advocate of “we fight them there so we dont have to fight them here”.

        5. avatar Totenglocke says:

          @Milsurp
          Those soldiers willingly signed up knowing that for the past 70 years we’ve done nothing but commit wars of aggression and done nothing defensive. They knew damn well that they would be used to terrorize people who do not pose a threat in any way to the US. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you are so quick to use the “They’re just following orders!” defense, despite people just like you saying it wasn’t a valid excuse during the Nuremburg trials. Just because they wear our tarnished flag on their uniform doesn’t make them holy and above reproach – they’re just as guilty for their actions as the politicians who cause the wars.

          Also, the whole “self defense” argument under ROE doesn’t hold when WE were the aggressors invading their country. You don’t get to barge into someone’s home, have them pull a gun and demand you get out, then shoot them and claim self defense.

          @WCLE
          So you think that if the government says something is OK, it magically becomes so? Committing murder is still murder, even if the government told you it was OK for you to murder those people and paid you to do it. As Frederick Bastiat said many years ago, “If I do not have the right to do something, what right do I have to petition the government to do it on my behalf?” – the same concept applies here. Theft is still theft, even if the government orders someone to do it and murder is still murder, even if the government orders someone to do it.

        6. avatar WLCE says:

          totenglocke, easy there tiger, im on your side. that comment wasn’t for you.

          from a legal standpoint, war is a exception case of “legal murder”, just like a police officer shooting a suspect in self defense.

          It sucks that a bureaucratic institution can be the exception to the rule, but that is one of the many characteristics of ANY government, whether democratic or federalist or whatever else.

          I certainly believe that it is the utmost priority for soldiers to support and defend the constitution (as it is the priority of their commanders). And yes, the “just following orders” defense did not work at nuremberg.

        7. avatar pat says:

          If 9/11 was a minor attack, I would hate to see a major one. After reading some of your stuff I sense that you have a rather…gulp….pessimistic view, of our nation (and I am a pessimist). I dont have all the answers for every crime our (evil empire) gets into. I do believe in American exceptionalism and think that Saddam and ‘Islamism’ were and are dangerous things. Have you considered moving to a country that you feel is the best example of your beliefs? Beyond the negatives (and Lord, there are many) I believe our nation is the greatest (by far) on Earth. If I thought there was a better nation than ours to live, I would move there. Dont believe all you see on the internet as there is alot of crap being spewed.

        8. avatar Totenglocke says:

          @Pat

          If you round down the population numbers to 300 million citizens in the US, then only about 0.001% of the US population died in 9/11. That’s pretty minor. It’s an understatement to say that the overwhelming majority of the county was unaffected by the attack. That’s also ignoring the fact that we provoked it with decades of using our military to terrorize other countries and trying to control their lives – so given what we deserve for our crimes against those people, blowing up a couple buildings is very minor retaliation.

          I have a realistic view of our nation. I used to be like most people on here, thumping the Bible, saying that the US had the right to do whatever it wanted because we were “The Chosen Ones”, etc. Then I grew up and learned about what exactly our government and military does, and saying that I was sickened by it is an understatement.

          How was Saddam a danger to the US? Please, I’d love to hear how some third world douche with a “military” that the registered hunters in Wisconsin alone could massacre in no time was a threat to the most powerful military on the planet. I’d also love to know how having a different religion than most Americans makes Islam a “threat” to the US. Do you also consider Atheists a threat? What about Hindus? Jews? Or are Jews OK because Christianity evolved from Judaism?

          I find it disturbing (though not surprising from a presumed Republican) that you think that the US has the right to murder anyone who disagrees with it. Just because you think the US is the best country doesn’t give the government the right to wage an unending series of wars of aggression to terrorize and intimidate other countries into doing as we say. Do you think that because men are (usually) physically stronger that it gives them the moral right to rape any woman they please? It’s the same concept – “might makes right”…either you believe in it, or you don’t.

          I want to “move” to a country that more closely fits my views – it’s called the US before it thought it had the right to rule the world and before politicians started blatantly ignoring every last part of the Constitution….so we’d have to rewind over 70 years to get to that time. No, it wasn’t perfect then and there were some injustices that would need to be corrected, but overall it was a far freer country and those who lived abroad did not have to live in fear of the US deciding to randomly invade and start raping and murdering their friends and family just because we could.

    6. avatar pat says:

      Of course, all the crazies in Iran, Pakistan, hell….all the Crapistans could have decided not to try to fight us by flooding Iraq and Afganistan with terrorists, sophisticated IED’s, and other weapons and funds. It was the occupation and desire to rebuild that cost so much blood and treasure. Should have just bombed their infrastructure and took the amount of oil that would have paid for the excursion (why we did not take the oil to pay for the wars is truly maddening…..liberals made sure we did not get the oil).

      1. avatar WLCE says:

        *looks back at the mountain of OIF documentation*

        ummm…we did “take” the oil. 😀

        1. avatar pat says:

          Are you saying that the US government recieved Iraqi oil money that has paid for the wars? A big reason for the wars unpopularity is the roughly Trillion dollar cost (though the 5,000 dead US soldiers is not to be taken lightly). Over a million people died (Soviet and German) during the two week battle over a city (Berlin) with populations a fraction of what ours is today. So, our war dead, while horribly tragic for those involved and their immediate loved ones, is nothing more than a training exercise that went awry compared to the roughly 60,000,000 who perished during WW2.

        2. avatar WLCE says:

          “Are you saying that the US government recieved Iraqi oil money that has paid for the wars?”

          They dont need to receive money because their corporate masters received interests in the oil.

          http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102802_wheels.html

          “A big reason for the wars unpopularity is the roughly Trillion dollar cost (though the 5,000 dead US soldiers is not to be taken lightly).”

          Yes, over a trillion if you dont account for the interest accrued and unfunded costs of the war. Calculating the whole cost of the war, it surpasses 1 trillion by a long shot.

          The war is unpopular because we were deceived into going to war over there, and the only ones who benefitted were special interest groups and the no-bid private corporate interests. go figure. we have known about such steaming horse shit since the days of General Smedley Butler.

          “Over a million people died (Soviet and German) during the two week battle over a city (Berlin) with populations a fraction of what ours is today. So, our war dead, while horribly tragic for those involved and their immediate loved ones, is nothing more than a training exercise that went awry compared to the roughly 60,000,000 who perished during WW2.”

          Which is a red herring (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html). Were not talking about World War II or the costs associated with that war. We are talking about the War on Terrorism.

          The gargantuan cost of World War II does not somehow make the Iraq or Afghan wars any more acceptable because they have comparatively lower costs.

        3. avatar pat says:

          What I mean by the ‘Butterfly Affect’ is that things can be accentuated and diminished in ways that turn complexity into simplicity and visa versa (or versa visa). Do these studies calculate the value of our returning soldiers on society, or just the cost? Very few sources say that these wars were even close to 4T. Much of the money for defense goes to costs that go with a militay wether at war or not so I hope these were not included in the studies you site. I will grant you that when a number is given by a government entity like the military (a regrettable need), that number will end up being larger….sometimes a whole lot larger with hidden costs and such, so I will just agree with you that the costs are….ugly.

  2. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    How about we close up this freaking PACKAGING DIVISION think tank full of Einsteins? I bet it costs a helluva lot more than 2 million a year !

  3. avatar gringito says:

    There is no law against stupidity, ignorance, short-term thinking or even governments…. 🙁

  4. avatar mike says:

    Because this is a common sense thing, it’ll take the gov’t several years to make a decision after in-depth panel reviews. Especially since it involves ammo.

    But order a pallet of $640 toilet seats or $436 hammers and you’ll get them shipped the same day, priority status if needed. Go figure.

  5. avatar Lance says:

    Good point but the number jump would get in the way. Most ammo cans hold 840rds. that’s to resupply exactly X number of troops per can increase would logistically screw the army up. Overall the army tried to use plastic ACU color bandoleers a few years ago and it didn’t work out too well since by your pic OD bandoleers and wooden boxes are back in use,

    Hope they droop some up for us too. But hay we get shallow end of the pool. I saw some USCG guys still shooting ammo M-193 made in 1987. I myself shot M-193 last year fro qualification.

  6. avatar Hawke says:

    I don’t know what these plastic sleeves look like but they don’t sound like they have a way to carry the ammo. That was the purpose of the bandoleer in the first place. A soldier could grab two bandoleers and have a combat load without having to stuff the ammo somewhere to carry it.

  7. avatar mountocean says:

    For less than a penny per round I hope cost isn’t the main factor if change is eventually implimented. Modern ammo lasts a long time without plastic wrapping, and who knows how well this stuff carries, opens or is repurposed (tournaquet, spit kit, &c). I’m all for a careful consideration of if it’s worth it.

  8. avatar Aharon says:

    America has a dark history of imperialistically waging war against the Native Americans that includes acts of genocide. As the continental 48 states were being settled and pacified, America then turned to more and more overseas military actions. The US also started a war or two against the Mexicans in the 1800s yet since the Mexicans were claiming the land inherited on maps from the evil old Spanish Empire and were still oppressing the Native Americans I have no problem with those land grabs.

    The past 100 years of overseas imperialism has brainwashed Americans into accepting as normal and supporting the use of taxpayer money and US citizen-soldier’s lives into war after war of foreign entanglements and costly military operations. It is not natural or necessary for a country based on human freedom and dignity to behave in such a way. Historically, it is the way declining empires have behaved.

    1. avatar barnslayer says:

      Lately (everything since the end of WW2) the US refuses to declare war. This lack of commitment has, in my opinion, lead to a more casual attitude towards the use of our troops. It also shows in our tactics and strategy. Victory no longer seems to be the ultimate goal. Rather, it’s all about passive/aggressive politics and gamesmanship.

      1. avatar SD3 says:

        Probably true, but I’d suggest the real reason congress stopped making declarations of war, was precisely because they feared ceding control of the nation’s purse strings to the executive branch.

        I.e., once congress declares that a state of war exists, they can’t simply decide not to fund it. They’d have to rescind the war declaration first. By *not* declaring war, they believe they retain authority to more efficiently end (defund) unpopular wars.

        So hows that workin’ out for us?….

  9. avatar kalel666 says:

    I generally agree with keeping the military at home as much as possible, but with the amount and scope of US interests all over the world, I don’t see this as realistic. I don’t think any president, including the current douche, spends American lives lightly.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      but with the amount and scope of US interests all over the world

      The military exists to protect the US from foreign attacks, not to kill people who pose no threat to us merely because they support a different socio-economic system or a different religion.

  10. avatar WLCE says:

    I already submitted such a idea back in 2009, when I was still active duty.

    Alongside my other ideas, it was apparently blown off and took some egghead civilian to figure it out and repeat it on listening ears.

  11. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    I guess I’m still stuck on the question of “what purpose does putting the ammo into 10-round stripper clips serve?”

    Stripper clips work when your rifle is designed to be fed with them (eg, Springfield 1903/03A3, M14/M1 or Enfield rifles), but what’s the point when the M4/M16 is fed from box magazines that are loaded by hand?

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      The stripper clips feed very quickly into magazines with an adapter that comes with each bandolier.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        OK, thanks. Learn something new every day.

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      As Skyler said, they seem anachronistic, but they’re still useful today. Here’s a video, actually made by one of the regular commenters here: http://youtu.be/CugXijCx2sc

      He’s not super good at it, but you get the idea. There’s a guy at a range I frequent that can run a clip into a magazine fast enough that it sounds like a zipper.

  12. avatar Skyler says:

    The military has made great improvements in personal equipment and small arms in the past 8 to 10 years and it’s a bit unfair to complain that this one idea that you favor, which is only now coming to your attention, is not being implemented more quickly.

    This is another product of the ever prolific good idea fairy. It may make sense to you and it might even be a good thing, but it is not unreasonable to make sure that the bandoliers don’t have advantages you’re not aware of. Even more importantly, there are a lot of rounds out there that still are in the supply channels that would need to be used up. No one has been complaining about the cloth bandoliers, there is little reason to rush this.

  13. avatar JPD says:

    So, it appears many here believe that we can sit here in our safe little house and not be involved in world affairs.

    Apparently many here have never read, or been part of history. Some examples:

    Stay out of WWII. Oh yeah, let Hitler or Stalin control all of Europe, Middle East and North Africa. Hitler was good at killing 12 million in 5 years, Stalin accounted for 30 million of his own people. Sure, we should have sat at home and let them have their way with the world.

    How about our friends to the west. The Japanese murdered, tortured, raped their way through China in the 30’s. Nanking alone 300,000. Burned Shanghai to the ground, with the people in it. Without their stupidity on 12/7/1941, they would have happily raped, tortured, and murdered their way through 1/3 of the world.

    We have been FAR from perfect in our use of our military in the last 100 years. But we have also shown the world, in many cases, we will stand up against evil.

    Am I suggesting that we intervene everywhere, anytime, all the time? Be the police of the world? NO! But their are those times…………………………….

    Like it our not, we are on the same planet. These people are our neighbors. You may not necessarily like your neighbor. But will you sit in your living room while the home invaders break in their house, and rape and kill their children? Then call yourself a good person?

    Welcome to Planet Earth.

    1. avatar speedracer5050 says:

      +100

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      I think you’re confused about how government works. To be accurate, your questions should be phrased like this:
      Will you steal money from your entire neighborhood at gunpoint and then hire other people using that stolen money to protect your neighbors while you sit in your living room while home invaders break in the neighbors house, and rape and kill their children? Then call yourself a good person?

      The twisted part is that government actually does call itself “good” after doing exactly that.

      1. avatar JPD says:

        Wee bit cynical Henry, but way too accurate in many cases. Complex issues throughout history. Are all governments inherently self serving, and evil or simply uncaring at heart? Governments are made up of people.

        Water is very deep here.

        Since I must deal with today, I attempt to see if “we” are making things better or worse. Some days yes, others no.

        Since I personally believe that we are “slowly” making progress as a country, a people, a species. Then, yeah. I will celebrate the heroes, the wins, when the good guys do come out on top. If it happens to be through the efforts of a government, be it department, platoon, committee or person, then great, I will take what I can get.

        Will I work against the bad? Stay vigilant? Question my elected officials? Darn right.

        Will I support my elected officials? Will I offer them my respect? Even if I did not vote for them, or if I did, do not agree with what they support? YES!! Why? Because “we” the people…..put them in office. Will I let them know how I feel, and work to keep them working on our behalf, meeting their responsibilities….you bet. For those that are dishonest, irresponsible, then I will again work to send them home.

  14. avatar ensitu says:

    .Recall that cotton bandoliers have been in use for nearly 100 years, Realize that there are BIG “constancies” in cotton country,,. America is now a nation of entitlement seekers and entitlement givers

  15. avatar In Memphis says:

    If the Army and government dosnt want to save the money on they newer packaging they can pass the savings on to me. I wont bitch.

  16. avatar MOG says:

    If we are going into wars, there should be one rule of engagement, do the job then get out. Not spend 8/10 years plus, losing in a civil war. Seems to me, as far as the “Middle East”, the military has spent lives and money not accomplishing any more than they did in first three months of engagement. They are being mis-used, if we needed 130,000, or so, diplomats/social workers/nation builders , then we should have sent them in to start with. Iraq is no better off without Hussein, Afghanistan is in the process of reverting back to the Taliban, it’s “President” holed up in a village, with virtually no power, except to moan and groan. They are still killing each other with impunity. Our military reduced to unpaid mercenaries by these countries, holding out for the next dictator. And, troops are being shot in the back by our “friends” as they are preparing to leave. We need our military, but, we can not continue to waste them. Define the goal, a way in and a way out, then let them do their job. We can not, and should not, get involved in civil wars. Hussein’s army was destroyed, he was captured, the Taliban were driven out, end of mission, let Iraq/Afghanistan sort the rest out. Just my rant, not meant as a comprehensive view of it all.

  17. avatar Dave says:

    All of the politics aside, from my personal experience in nine plus years of active duty the military is reluctant to change anything. If the change involves common sense you might as well forget about about it. It doesn’t matter you’re talkin about multi-million dollar aircraft, ammunition, or uniforms. If it was good enough for the Army/Navy/Marines/Air Force back in good old WWII/Korea/Vietnam than it still must be just as good today.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Claiming a product is better and cheaper is very easy. I’ve not seen much more than a claim here a d nothing to explan the claim.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email