...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

April 22, 2004

XM-8 Question

One advantage to having this blog is my wealth of readers with superior ballistic knowledge. So, i ask you Publicola, Rustler, et al.: is the hype i've been reading about the soon to be available XM-8 true? Or is it all hype? i already know how most users feel about the M-16. Would the XM-8, in either the 5.56mm or 6.8mm version, solve our problem? It sure is a science fictioney looking thing.

Posted by annika, Apr. 22, 2004 |


I wish I was on the office cable: they have videos.

Posted by: Tiger on Apr. 22, 2004

The only gun I know how to shoot doesn't even squirt straight.

Posted by: d-rod on Apr. 22, 2004

I wouldn't rely heavily on Mr. Tierney's analysis.
One seemingly implausible claim is that the M-16 caused the deaths of THOUSANDS of are soldiers. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but we've probably lost about 60k men to combat action since the inception of major combat in Vietnam. Tierney doesn't attribute a thousand deaths, two thousand deaths but multiple thousands, we must assume he means at least 3k or more.
-I doubt the M-16 is directly responsible for one of every 20 KIAs. First the M-16 was initially used by the Air Force, only in '66 did the Army request 100k M-16s for service in Vietnam. Thousands had already perished before the mouse-gun was deployed. Second a substancial portion of troups carried: M-60s; M-79 (thump guns); M-870 Mk 1 shotguns; M-3 (grease guns); M-14s; and even Stoner 63s, after the M-16 had been fully fielded. Removing these would shift the percentage even higher. I hate to trifle when the numbers represent our fallen countrymen, but these things do require a cold scientific approach, if only to draw the correct conclusions and prevent further, avoidable, injuries.
-I actually favor a switch to either the 6.5x45 Grendel or the 6.8x45 Rem., if thier bullets are optimized for military roles. However, the assertation that the 5.56x45 firing M193 BALL or M855 ammo, is a varmint gun is somewhat dubious, the site ammo-oracle.com has an indepth explaination of the cartridge/bullet's external and all important terminal ballistic characteristics.
-Briefly, a projectile with higher energy, say, the 7.62x51 round fired from a M-14 or M-60, always has the potential to exihibit more penetration or trauma but usually not both. Unfortunately, the potential isn't realized in the M-80 BALL ammo, in use throughout Vietnam to present-day. The aforementioned M-855 varmint round will penetrate more steel at greater ranges than the M-80 BALL round. Further the M-193 varmint round can cause greater tissue trauma, sub 300m, than the M-80 BALL. That's not debatable, it's demonstrable. So the current varmint ammo may not be a man-stopper but it's better than the inefficient 7.62 rounds used extensively in Vietnam. Obviously the 7.62, 6.8, 6.5 rounds could surpass the performance of the 5.56 varmint round, but in the wars we've fought in the past the fragmenting M-193 varmint bullet had the ability to stop charlie, better than the admittedly more manly 7.62.
-All aside, we have the ability to provide better rifles to those who defend us. I think the Brits did a study in the 50s regarding the most effiecient calibre and arrived at a conclusion about 7mm wide, 6.8 is definately in the park. Personally I'd like to see it chambered in a Stoner 63 variant or maybe even a G-3 type, with the barrel shifted closer to centre-line, like the M-16.
Sorry 'bout the length, but you did ask...?

Posted by: Jasen on Apr. 22, 2004

Sorry, I meant to type our, not are.
All appologies for any other speling or gramatical erors.

Posted by: Jasen on Apr. 22, 2004


Mr. Tierney's rant isn't very useful. I think much of it is exaggerated, some of it inaccurate, and it focuses on some problems that were fixed long ago. As one example, to my knowledge the claim that the M16 was designed to "allow smaller and younger troops to . . . spray rounds without tiring" is pure crap. The smaller, lighter weapon was meant to be less fatiguing to lug around for weeks at a time, and more maneuverable in tight spaces. If you've never carried a 10-pound rifle all day, you can't appreciate what a tiring pain in the ass it really is. The smaller rounds were intended to permit soldiers to carry more ammo for the same weight. And there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that each rifleman ought to be able to quickly pump numerous shots into the enemy, or lay down a blanket of suppressive fire with his shoulder weapon. The fact that (besides artillery, of course) machineguns dominated the battlefields of the last century proves that full-auto fire is not inherently a bad thing. If some troops substituted "spray and pray" for aimed fire when it was inappropriate to do so, that was a training and discipline problem, not a design flaw.

But none of that means the M16 is the ideal weapon.

As for reliability, no weapon never fails. And anytime a weapon fails in combat, soldiers are going to bitch, and their buddies are going to pick up the tune and bitch some more. That's understandable: People get touchy when their lives are on the line. But it does tend to distort the magnitude of the problem, I think. All that said, though, some weapons do fail more regularly than others, and the good ones don't do it often if properly cared for. So we shouldn't just shrug our shoulders if there really is a problem.

The 16 has a reputation among some folks for having a reliability problem. And it may be more than just soldiers bitching. The 16 traded reliability for accuracy, probably to a greater extent than is justified in a general issue combat rifle. There are some things about the rifle that don't make much sense, like the fact that the gas tube vents into the chamber, and deposits most of the fouling there. This gas system contributes to accuracy in that the moving parts don't begin to move until the bullet has left or very nearly left the barrel. But common sense dictates that this system will make for a weapon that dirties rapidly and is liable to experience reliability problems if not cleaned religously. A design that uses a traditional operating rod setup vents the fouling through the bore. It is less accurate, but it'll take a long time for the buildup of powder residue to affect reliability. It's simply a more robust system. The feature about the M1/M14 rifles that I least care for (the fact that the bolt mechanism is exposed to the elements), which also affects reliability, is not present in the XM8. So, yes, I think the XM8 is likely to be better than the M16 in terms of reliability.

In terms of lethality, I'll say this: All else being equal, a bigger hole makes for more blood loss and better odds of hitting something vital, both of which lead to greater odds of rapid incapacitation and death. Again, all else being equal, 6.8mm makes a bigger permanent wound cavity than 5.56mm. But since we're talking ball ammo in whatever cartridge we decide upon, I feel obligated to note that the difference is, as a practical matter, pretty darned small. Just a tad over 1mm in diameter. 1/25 of an inch. We're still a long way from 120 or 155mm.

IMHO, bullet design is the single most important factor in terminal ballistics. If we're really serious about improving lethality, we should be working hard to engineer bullets that create enormous permanent wound cavities. (There are already many such bullets on the commercial market.) Unfortunately, we're squeamish about that so it's unlikely to happen. To be fair, there's also the issue of penetration: Bullets that create the types of wounds I'm talking about don't generally don't penetrate hard objects very well. Penetration can be a useful thing on the battlefield. It's very hard to create bullets that hold together well enough to penetrate hard cover, then expand and/or fragment in soft tissue. (I say "very hard" instead of "impossible" because I have great faith in American ingenuity. I suspect we could do it, if we really wanted to. We've already managed to produce "glass" that stops bullets fired from one side, while letting people on the other side fire through the glass at their attackers.)

There are some other issues I won't bother with now. The bottom line is that the XM8 might well be an improvement on the 16 in terms of reliability, and perhaps marginally so in terms of lethality. But I don't think it's a magic wand that's going to solve all the infantryman's problems.

Posted by: Matt Rustler on Apr. 22, 2004

I love HK. They make good, well engineered weapons. But it's dumb to field weapons during wartime to troops who haven't trained with them.

The original M16 was a great guard duty weapon. The M16A1 was a mediocre battlfield weapon, but it was easy to teach to unskilled shooters and chicks. The M16A2 is significantly different from its preceding variants, heavier & longer barrel, muzzle brake, better sighting, more durable and light to carry.

Finally, the 5.56 nato round does not tumble in flight. It often tumbles after hitting a target because of it's high velocity, thus causing some pretty destructive effects.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 22, 2004

Nice, excellent information all around, Jasen, Matt and Casca. i was right to take that article with a grain of salt. When it comes to gun issues, that's the one thing i've learned from the blogosphere. But none of you mentioned how the XM-8 looks like it should be on Star Trek.

Casca, i was taught that tumbling bullet nonsense in a college history class and i thought it sounded funny when i first heard it.

Posted by: annika! on Apr. 22, 2004

Yikes, it's 8:45 and i'm still at work! i gotta go! Overtime sucks, except on payday.

Posted by: annika! on Apr. 22, 2004

the short answer is yep: the XM8 would solve some if not most of the problems troops have with the M16. But the cartridge is almost as critical as the platform it's fired from, so unless they make the move to the 6.8 or some other more effective cartridge then it's gonna be less than ideal.
I'm working on a more detailed response but it might take a few days or a week to get to ya.

About some of the comments here:

Cut Tierney some slack. A WW2 vet is gonna be aged. Yep he got some facts wrong & others backwards but he at least remembers the Garand was a superior weapon. :)

The "thousands" estimate seems plausible since he said that was over the last 40 years or so - not just limited to Viet-Nam. Face it - the '16 jamming up has gotten a lot of our people killed. Now maybe they would have been killed anyway but considering the '16's design it'd be safe to say that it was at least a partial cause.

The 5.56x45's nearest civy equivilent (the .223 Remington) is a varming cartridge. In civilian guise it's probably got an edge over the 5.56x45mm simply because expanding bullets can be used. It being equal or better than the intermediate or full powered .30 caliber cartridges is something I'd only expect to hear from people in ammo companies that only make 6mm & smaller cartridges. Muzzle energy & velocity aren't the most reliable means of judging stopping power so I won't bore anyone with reciting muzle energies or velocities. I will say that more than a few states outlaw hunting deer sized game with a .223 Remington. & if it won't humanely put down deer sized game I'd say that'd be a good indication that it lacks something as a man-stopper.

The idea that nothing is wrong with laying down suppresing fire is sound: however the main contention I & many others have with full auto weapons on the front line isn't that they aren't necessary - it's that the military focuses on this to the neglect of accurate aimed fire. Full auto is fine with the proper training, but it shouldn't ever take the place of basic marksmanship which some people fear happens when you hand a soldier a rifle that is full auto. Personally I'd rather see a fire team with 1 full auto & the rest semi's but then again I'm so old fashioned I'm still wondering why the Garand is a surplus item.

Oh as an aside there is at leats one company & possibly several advertising a "msart" bullet. It's supposed to penetrate hard surfaces while expanding in softer surfaces. I think Cor-Bon had something to do with it but I'm nto certain - but I do believe it's just a pistol bullet proposition for now at least.

& I don't think the bolt "exposed to the elements" is really that big of a deal. But then again I favor a rifle with that attribute - e-mail me if you wish to argue endlessly & mercilessly ont he pro's & cons of that system. :)

& yes - it does look like something the Federation would use (despite Kirk's objections) but I don't think the XM8 would be tame enough for the Federation. Just ask 40 of D..er, 7 of 9.

Posted by: Publicola on Apr. 23, 2004

Ooops! I forgot to mention my one big bitch about the XM8: Where are the friggin' sights? All I see is that optical thingy. Not good.

Ancient Marine Corps wisdom, undoubtedly equally applicable to other services:

Lock a lance corporal in an empty closet with three ball bearings. Return in one hour. He will have broken one, lost one, and sold one.

The same applies to any piece of gear we issue, including rifles. If we're going to go with optical sights on a general issue combat rifle, it better have a robust, effective backup system of iron sights. I see no such system on the XM8.

Posted by: Matt on Apr. 23, 2004

Oh, and one other thing:

Publicola, you say whatever you want about the other services; I don't know anything about their marksmanship training. But if you ever again suggest that my beloved Marine Corps focuses on full auto "to the neglect of accurate aimed fire," we're gonna have a problem! ;-) Nothing could be further from the truth, with respect to the Corps.

Posted by: Matt on Apr. 23, 2004

i love you Publicola. But i think you're slipping. It took you seven sentences to mention the Garand this time! LOL

(You know i'm kidding you babe)

Posted by: annika on Apr. 23, 2004


The Corps is the best of all the services as far as teaching the time honored basics. However I think if you compare their standards today to the standards they had 50 years ago you'll see their slipping a bit - not nearly as fast as the Army but I think there's a notacible decrease in marksmanship standards.

This is based on my observations of some friends of mine in the Corps. They're down at Paris Island & Cherry Point currently if that makes any difference. From conversations with them I've been told that the amount of practice as well as the requirements for qualification aren't what I'd expect from the Corps. & again from conversations with them the reasons for this drop range from simply not scheduling enough practice during the year to adjusting the standards so a lower common denominator can qualify. It's not that the standards are unacceptable - it's that they're approaching that.

But I'll grant that this is purely anecdotal. If you have any hard stats I'd be more than happy to retract. The Corps is still trying to live up to that idea that every Marine is a rifleman (or riflewoman) first, but they seem to be succombing (albeit much slower) to the general decrease in marksmanship skill that the other branches are prone to.

Now in the Corps' case this may not have anything to do with the accurate aimed fire v. emphasis on the 3 shot burst/full auto technique, but my original comment was about the military in general & most specifically about the commanders who decide what techiniques to employ & teach - not the Corps specifically.

& I'll even grant that it's a perceptual thing - that my idea of the Corps is elevated beyond the reality therefore I'm surprised there isn't a more rigorous standard for marksmanship.

Course I see we're gonna be arguing about this one (& I'm not above being convinced I'm wrong about the Corps) but don't think I'm trying to slam the Corps. They're the branch of service I respect the most. I just think compared to what the standards used to be they're slacking off a bit.


Well I figured you'd expect a gratuitous Garand mention in the first para, so I thought I'd sneak it in further down & catch you off guard. Course as observant as you usually are I'm surprised you haven't noticed that I haven't mentioned Chief Joseph in a while. :)

Posted by: Publicola on Apr. 23, 2004

-I broach the field of your expertise with humility and a little caution, and I do not work for a company which only manufactures sub-calibre ammo. Yet the current M855 BALL ammo does out perform the M80 round, in terms of penetrating mild-steel. I've witnessed it. I know you'd never own or fire a .22 cal battle rifle, but if you borrowed one you could, buy a box of milspec 855s, pay a transient to fire it into a sample of plate at say 450m and compare it with some surplus M80. I will concede the M80 better penetrates other dense media at extended ranges.
-Regarding the slight advantage you attribute to varmint ammo (polymer tip, H.P.?)over military FMJ, your not fully grasping the reactions which occur when the M193 or to a lesser extent M855 projectile transitions into fluids that are significantly denser than air. The projectile tip in a spitzer round has less mass, therefore less kinetic energy, than the base. This causes the tip to decelerate faster than the base creating a violent yaw, as the bullet attempts to assume an ass forward progression, and this happens in all spitzer type FMJ bullets. At high velocities the milspec 556 FMJ bullet (as it's designed) fragments explosively when extreme lateral forces, encountered during the yaw phase, tear the projectile apart. This creates huge areas of damage deep in the target, much greater than the non-frag M80. The current M80 ammo simply punches it's pencil sized hole through the target, if it misses a vital organ or system by an inch, then it's 'just a flesh wound'. What I'm saying is the U.S. military has used 'exploding ammo' since the 60s, I call it the FMJ/Hague/DumDum loophole.
-I still think we should up-gun to a 6mm minimum, just make sure the bullets can continue to transport the militants back to Valhalla, er Paradise er the 12th century, whatever.
-I didn't write this to take-a-stab at an honorable old veteran, if it appeared so I regret that. About the Garand, hallowed be it's name, what do you suppose the outcome in Somalia, '93, if the Garand had been deployed.
Thanks Annika,
-Publicola the 60k KIA guess was inclusive of all officially sanctioned U.S. combat, Vietnam foward. I'd think our Indochine envolvement accounts for at least 95% in the last 40 years anyway.
-The A2 doesn't have a muzzle-brake, just a suppressor. And the M855 ammo will tumble, if fired from a -16A1; the twist rate is two low to stablize the longer projectile. But your correct, and the myth of tumbling bullets was believed to be the source of the 556s destructive capability, which seemed inproportionate to it's small calibre.

Posted by: Jasen on Apr. 23, 2004


3% of 60,000 is 1,800 right? So I think it is stil plausible that "thousands" of deaths could be attributed to poor performance of the '16 & its cartridge. Unfortunately unless you find a body with a '16 that's obviously jammed & make note of it then it's difficult to say if the weapon or some other factor contributed to the death.

& I have fired Ar-15's before & I'm not necessarily opposed to owning a .22 rifle. The '16 probably wouldn't be my first choice but as long as it's regulated to hunting & target shooting I don't have much of an issue with the '16 & its civilian variants.

However I must point out an oxymoron: "... .22 caliber battle rifle..." :D

I have read reports that the 5.56 can out-pentrate the 7.62 in mild steel at limited ranges. It's just that a small increase in close range steel penmtration doesn't make up for the 5.56mm's other inadequacies.

Also I'm aware of the tumbling effect of the 5.56 in soft media. But again I think that it's not a sufficient gain over what we were using before, let alone what we could be using now.

& the varmint ammo I referred to was of the hollowpoint variety. You can speak of tumbling & subsequent fragmentation but I think a more startling example is what a modern premium hollowpoint does when it strikes tissue. Most varmint bullets are designed to expand mega-violently. This is to minimize richochets as well as ensure a quick end to the varmint in question. I'm sure a mil-surp FMJ would kill a ground hog quickly, but I doubt it would cause the critter to literally explode the way a modern hollowpoint can. Of course for increased expansion there's a trade off in penetration so a modern varming round might not be ideal for military service where hard & soft targets are encountered. But if a soft target is all you have to face then I think an expanding hollowpoint would create a bigger stretch cavity as well as more permanent wound channels due to its violent fragmentation.

But keep in mind that people like us have been arguing on what makes a bullet a better man stopper &/or combat round since sometime in the 1700's.

About Somalia...tell the truth I'm not to hip on the details of that particular engagement. But except for situations where a submachine gun would be ideal (i.e. clearing a house), I think a Garand would have served our troops better than the '16. Aside from its advantegous when fired, should you run out of ammo a Garand makes a better bayonet pltform than the '16 & if it comes down to it the Garand makes for a much sturdier club. But i think it's obvious around here (& most of the free world) that I have a bias for the Garand & against the '16, so take it with as much salt as you like.

Posted by: Publicola on Apr. 23, 2004

Good God, how'd I get in here in the battle of the blowhards?

Jason - You're just fucking wrong on the muzzle brake issue. And I'll be glad to take your money if you want to put it where your mouth is. The A1 has a flash suppressor with about six vents spaced evenly around it for disapating gas. The A2 has about 3 vents in the flash suppressor which ARE a muzzle brake, and aid quicker site picture recovery during rapid fire.

Publicola - How you do go on. Lots of guys smarter than you or I, and with nothing else to do, figure out what weapons mix our troops need, and for the most part, that is what they have. All things considered, the M16A2 is a great weapon; light, easy to use, and easily taught. Before you start making pronouncements of what other people should carry, try reading "The Soldiers Load and The Mobility of a Nation" by SLA Marshall.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 24, 2004

Two more things...

1. Using DODICs (Department of Defense Identification Code) to identify ammo is fetishistic. Why not say, "The 5.56 variant used in the Squad Automatic Weapon" instead of M855? It "tumbles in flight" when fired from an A1? Perhaps, but since nobody but fucking nobody uses the A1 anymore, and nobody would fire that round through it in any case unless under the most dire of circumstances, since it would require that the round be de-linked from the belt that it comes in. What's the point? The A1 tumbles in flight too.

2. Troops killed because of the M16. In general, I don't buy it at all. Maybe before the forward assist was installed, but there were other problems too, like the 20-round box magazine, and as I said before, handing a new weapon to troops in the field in any case is dicey.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 24, 2004

-I'm sorry, but you are wrong; the A2 doesn't have a muzzle brake. It has a flash suppressor that vents slightly more gas upward, which COMPENSATES for muzzle rise; it doesn't diminish perceived recoil. Muzzle brakes, however do reduce felt recoil, and 'thats their whole damn raison d'etre'. Brakes either have ported bores that vent gasses before the projectile exits the rifling or they use a series of external fins, usually set at 90 degrees or less to the longitudinal axis of the bore's progression. When the expanding gas impinges on these fins, part of it's energy is converted into forward force, acting to counter the rearward motion of the rifle. The A2's suppressor doesn't employ either mechanism.
-Using the term M855 may seem 'fetishistic'. But for brevity's sake it works better than saying, '5.56 variant used in the Squad Automatic Weapon'. The length would've been compounded further when I, for clarity, had to subtract the other variants currently used in the S.A.W., namely, the M856 tracer, and the M995 AP. I'm also not fond of the grade-school color terminology: green tip; orange tip; black tip respectively. First the colors aren't universally exclusive and it sounds redneckesque, hay bud got eny o' dem dar green tips yer inersted in sellin'.
-I tossed in the bit about 'the 5.56 variant used in the Squad Automatic Weapon' because people often have fired the longer bullets in a rifle with a low rate of twist, and it erroneously reinforces the tumbling lore of the Vietnam era bullets. Many do still use the A1, I mentioned it for their benefit.

Annika, you shoud known better than to bait your readers with topics like this, burning that precious bandwidth and all.

Posted by: Jasen on Apr. 24, 2004


You know, lots of people smarter than you & i with nothing else to do figure out what laws we need & who our representitives should be....

Now do you see how flawed that premise is?

I haven't read Marshall's book but I'm familiar with most (if not all) theories concerning the equipment of the individual soldier. & I have a little experience - ya see coming from a long line of rednecks I know what it's like to carry a long gun & ammo whilst trapsing through the mountains. I'll grant tht I've never done it trying to cover x miles per day but still I understand what it's like for a long gun to weight down on ya as you're trying to quickly scramble up a hill.

Now lemme clue you into this: despite the level of expertice involved in reaching a decision, everybody else & his/her brother has the perogative to second guess said decision. You do it in some situations just as we all do. Arguing the merits of a decision by those who are supposed to have some level of expertice is not only okay, but often necessary. I hate to break this to ya but sometimes the experts are wrong. Remember the new formula for Coke that came out a few years back? Bunch of experts thought it'd catch on. It sank. But they were in a psuedo free market & said market, filled with people not as smart as the designers of the new Coke, made those experts realize that they made a boo boo.

If you like the '16 & it's cartridge that's cool. If you wish to argue its merits & the lack thereof that's cool as well. I'll be more than happy to debate you over this & several other related issues. But chill with the "blowhard" bit & don't expect to be taken seriously if your argument is that smarter guys than us made a decision & we shouldn't question it.

Posted by: Publicola on Apr. 24, 2004

Ech, you two are a waste of time. A muzzle brake does not only serve to deminish recoil. It also serves to steady the weapon, and I suggest that you google "muzzle brake and M16A2".

Publicola - Nice lawyerly twist of the argument. Apples and oranges, you're still a blowhard, and might I add supercilious jackass. Like I said, you carry an M1. The M16 is an all around superior weapon, and nobody is paying YOU to decide what Joe Shittheragman ought to be carrying.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 26, 2004


A compensator reduces the amount of climb at the muzzle by directing gases upward. It does not diminish preceived recoil, it redirects it slightly.
A muzzle brake redirects gases in order to reduce felt recoil.
A flash suppresor vents gases in such as way as to prevent a flash from occuring in front of the front sight (it doesn't eliminate all flash as is the popular belief).

So you would be correct in saying that a compensator/flash hider combo would allow for a quicker second shot, but because it reduces the amount of muzzle climb, not recoil.

But it's so nice of you to try to bring a discussion down to the level of ad hominem attacks because you disagree with (or don't understand) the arguments.

If you wish to act like an adult I'll be more than happy to continue the argument. If not you hang on to your '16 all ya want - just don't come crying to me when you're 200 yards inside soemone's range cause they have a Garand or M1A or FAL but they're still 100 yards outside of your range 'cause you have a varmint cartridge.
Equally don't lemme hear you bitchin when you get off two mags & then have to field strip the damn thing to clear the jam that just put you out of the fight.
But especially don't commence with the cryin' & moaning cause two people who actually understand what they're arguing about can do it w/o getting all pissed off & calling each other names.

Posted by: Publicola on Apr. 26, 2004

Coming in a little late here. The present 5.56 (M855) penetrates better than 7.62 ball because 7.62 ball is state of the art 1930s design. With a similar design applied to M80 ball, it would do better. Close up, M14s can turn cover into concealment and, as more than a few people who had experience with both states, "really knocks them out of the trees". And I have years of very specific stories from relatives in the military in the late 1960s and early 1970s of M16 failures in and out of combat. Some of these turned into reports that they still have copies of. I know that the M16 today is a decent weapon, but it still fires a very small, light bullet, and even the MK262s only somewhat make up for this. Why not 165+ grains at 2800 fps as opposed to 77 grains at 2900 fps? You can get sound supressors that act as brakes and most people find an M14 to be reasonable *with* *training* and we still have about 800k M14s. It is high time to go back to a cartridge that can reach out and it is high time to get back to a gun with an op rod.

Posted by: lateniteguy on Apr. 27, 2004

My favorite artist is Renior,how about you?

Edward hopper paintings

Mary Cassatt paintings

gustav klimt paintings

oil painting reproduction

Oil Painting

handmade Oil Painting

mark rothko paintings

Old Master Oil Paintings

Nude Oil Paintings

dropship oil paintings

Mediterranean paintings

Oil Painting Gallery

Alfred Gockel paintings

Alexei Alexeivich Harlamoff paintings

Aubrey Beardsley paintings

Andrea del Sarto paintings

Alexandre Cabanel paintings

Anders Zorn paintings

Anne-Francois-Louis Janmot paintings

Allan R.Banks paintings

Andrea Mantegna paintings

Arthur Hughes paintings

Albert Bierstadt paintings

Andreas Achenbach paintings

Alphonse Maria Mucha paintings

Benjamin Williams Leader paintings

Bartolome Esteban Murillo paintings

Berthe Morisot paintings

Cheri Blum paintings

Camille Pissarro paintings

Carl Fredrik Aagard paintings

Caravaggio paintings

Claude Lorrain paintings

Claude Monet paintings

Charles Chaplin paintings

Diane Romanello paintings

Diego Rivera paintings

Don Li-Leger paintings

David Hardy paintings

Dirck Bouts paintings

Dante Gabriel Rossetti paintings

Daniel Ridgway Knight paintings

Edmund Blair Leighton paintings

Eugene de Blaas paintings

Eduard Manet paintings

Edwin Austin Abbey paintings

Edward Hopper paintings

Edgar Degas paintings

Emile Munier paintings

Edwin Lord Weeks paintings

Fabian Perez paintings

Francois Boucher paintings

Frank Dicksee paintings

Ford Madox Brown paintings

Federico Andreotti paintings

Fra Angelico paintings

Frederic Edwin Church paintings

Frederic Remington paintings

Francisco de Goya paintings

Filippino Lippi paintings

Francisco de Zurbaran paintings

Gustav Klimt paintings

Georgia O'Keeffe paintings

Gustave Clarence Rodolphe Boulanger paintings

Guillaume Seignac paintings

George Owen Wynne Apperley paintings

Gustave Courbet paintings

Guido Reni paintings

George Inness paintings

George Frederick Watts paintings

Guercino paintings

Howard Behrens paintings

Henri Fantin-Latour paintings

Horace Vernet paintings

Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky paintings

Il'ya Repin paintings

Igor V.Babailov paintings

Juarez Machado paintings

Joan Miro paintings

Jean-Honore Fragonard paintings

Jehan Georges Vibert paintings

Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot paintings

James Childs paintings

John Singleton Copley paintings

Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida paintings

Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida paintings

Joseph Mallord William Turner paintings

Julien Dupre paintings

Julius LeBlanc Stewart paintings

Jeffrey T.Larson paintings

Jean-Paul Laurens paintings

Jules Breton paintings

Johannes Vermeer paintings

Jacques-Louis David paintings

John Everett Millais paintings

James Jacques Joseph Tissot paintings

Jules Joseph Lefebvre paintings

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres paintings

John William Godward paintings

John William Waterhouse paintings

John Singer Sargent paintings

Jean-Leon Gerome paintings

Lorenzo Lotto paintings

Louis Aston Knight paintings

Leon Bazile Perrault paintings

Leon-Augustin L'hermitte paintings

Lady Laura Teresa Alma-Tadema paintings

Louise Abbema paintings

Leonardo da Vinci paintings

Lord Frederick Leighton paintings

Mark Rothko paintings

Montague Dawson paintings

Mary Cassatt paintings

Maxfield Parrish paintings

Martin Johnson Heade paintings

Nancy O'Toole paintings

Philip Craig paintings

Paul McCormack paintings

Patrick Devonas paintings

Peder Mork Monsted paintings

Pierre Auguste Renoir paintings

Peder Severin Kroyer paintings

Pieter de Hooch paintings

Pietro Perugino paintings

Peter Paul Rubens paintings

Rudolf Ernst paintings

Robert Campin paintings

Rembrandt paintings

Raphael paintings

Salvador Dali paintings

Stephen Gjertson paintings

Sir Henry Raeburn paintings

Thomas Cole paintings

Theodore Robinson paintings

Titian paintings

Theodore Chasseriau paintings

Ted Seth Jacobs paintings

Vincent van Gogh paintings

Vittore Carpaccio paintings

Warren Kimble paintings

Wassily Kandinsky paintings

William Etty paintings

William Merritt Chase paintings

William Blake paintings

Winslow Homer paintings

William Bouguereau paintings

Posted by: handmade painting on May. 26, 2008