The Lowly SKS

[ArmySGT.]

I think the PMAG ban comes from the Law suit going on between the DOD (DARPA) and MagPul.

MagPul is suing the DoD for copyright infringement by using a direct copy of their anti tilt followers in the new round of issue magazines.

[Webstral]

Yes, yes. That makes Big Army sense. Prevent the troops from using equipment they find useful to satisfy the lawyers.

Life would be so much better if the lawyers all had to do a tour as an 11B before being allowed to be in a lawsuit concerning military issues.

[ArmySGT.]

I think some General thought he was going to punish Magpul.

Look into the Defense industry Company Officers.

Shocking how many have COL. (Ret), BG (Ret.), MG (Ret), LTG (Ret), or Gen. (Ret.) behind their names.

Especially when you can find they are now working for Companies for which they were the Project Officer for when Active.

[Tegyrius]

The other reasoning I've seen - take it for what it's worth - is that the ban came down because a bunch of Joes couldn't distinguish between Magpul polymer magazines (GTG) and, say, Tapco polymer magazines (crap). The intent, therefore, was to keep all polymer mags out of theatre so people wouldn't be using sub-standard/unreliable gear in combat.

Hadn't heard about the lawsuit, but now that it's been brought up, I find general officer spite an equally plausible explanation.

- C.

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, there are, sadly, always those guys -- they also are the ones who think a $100 NcStar ACOG knock off they found on eBay is a great deal and want to replace their issue AimPoint with it.

They run the most amok in units where the leadership has poor backgrounds with firearms stuff, and the easiest remedy is to just ban it if it isn't USGI. In my last unit our senior E-8 had some SOF time on his resume and reserved the right of review on anything anyone wanted to put on their weapon, so things like quality aftermarket optics and PMags were good to go. The guy who wanted to slap an eight power Chinese Leupold knock off he bought in the bazaar on his M4 and pretend he was a sniper . . . not so much.

Hadn't heard about the lawsuit, but now that it's been brought up, I find general officer spite an equally plausible explanation.

Word on the street and such is that the improved "in house" Army follower design is just the Magpul design with the bullet guide swapped to the other side of the follower. I can only assume it was dreamed up by an alumni of the same clown college as the guys who invented the godforsaken ACU camouflage pattern. Sadly like ArmySGT touched on, all of those oxygen thieves will most likely make general and then segue directly into six figure income consulting or executive jobs with the defense industry and keep right on stealing oxygen and squandering tax payer money.

[headquarters]

T2K bayonet

the reason is while the rifle and shotgun say "im going to kill you" the Bayonet says "im going to come over there and kill you in the most gruesome manner you can think of"

good investment in such an enviroment imho. Not all combat is going to " tactical" some of it is just going to be two starving guys squaring off over a moldy loaf of bread - being able to save a bullet by stabbing someone will make sense in such circumstances. All in all melee weapons will be more useful and more prolific.The bayonet is already issued and would probably be used a lot more than today . ( It is pretty much obsolete today - our unit didnt even issue them).

I suspect the club ( with / without spikes - a.k.a trench club) and the sharpened field showel would make comebacks.

[HorseSoldier]

A bayonet or just a spear would come in really handy dealing with aggressive feral dogs, as well. Lots of people who have access to a firearm in Y2K won't have access to enough ammunition to take pot shots at every dog (or pack of dogs) they run into.

[pmulcahy11b]

They are not too happy about that as the stuff they buy from Ranger Joe's, Magpul, or US Cav is typically a *lot* better than issue stuff. This is damned if you do, damned if you don't: By having Joe buy his own shit, the unit saves money that could be spent on other things: however, if things worked the way they should, Joe shouldn't have too... so... *shrugs*

+1+!

[pmulcahy11b]

(Actually, I wouldn't have. ATF has enough of a file on me as it is. But it's the sentiment that counts, right )

- C.

Hmmmm...makes me wish I still had my TS clearance with three special accesses...

[bobcat]

back to the SKS. it would quickly be a popular weapon in the US due to the fact they've been cheap and available en-mass sinces around the 80's.(i also imagine the CD stockpiles of ww2 era weapons and ammo would also be released so the M1 carbine and chicago typewriter would also make comebacks.)

[Webstral]

If the intended target of the bayonet actually gets the message "I'm going to come over there and kill you, blah, blah," then the bayonet user has seriously misused the bayonet. The bayonet is for use in darkness or under conditions of very restricted lines of sight, like a trench or fighting position. Even then, the user should be following up a grenade attack. The best use of the bayonet isn't fighting. The best use of the bayonet is finishing off folks who have been stunned by the use of another weapon or who can't see the bayonet user coming.

[Adm.Lee]

If the intended target of the bayonet actually gets the message "I'm going to come over there and kill you, blah, blah," then the bayonet user has seriously misused the bayonet. The bayonet is for use in darkness or under conditions of very restricted lines of sight, like a trench or fighting position. Even then, the user should be following up a grenade attack. The best use of the bayonet isn't fighting. The best use of the bayonet is finishing off folks who have been stunned by the use of another weapon or who can't see the bayonet user coming.

I sort of disagree with the last sentence.

History seems full of examples in which one side in combat will give up a position rather than face a determined and aggressive enemy up close. It doesn't have to be with bayonets fixed, as you say, it could be grenades or just the sight of the enemy coming and coming closer. So, IMO, if the enemy gets the message that "I'm coming over there to kill you" and they aren't motivated enough to stay around, then the bayonet has done its job, whether or not it's fixed. It's the willingness to close to bayonet range (or, in reverse, the willingness to stand at that range in the face of an attack) that sometimes wins battles.

Best source for this: Paddy Griffith's "Forward into battle"

[Webstral]

It's the willingness to close to bayonet range (or, in reverse, the willingness to stand at that range in the face of an attack) that sometimes wins battles.

So the bayonet is really beside the point. It's the spirit of aggression that causes a less-committed enemy to retire. The Japanese banzai charges failed not because their bayonets weren't fixed but because the Americans were willing to stand and fight and just happened to have superior firepower.

[Legbreaker]

I sort of disagree with the last sentence.

And I'm completely in agreement with Adm.Lee.

Bayonets don't need to be inserted into flesh to be effective, in fact the best result is achieved when they're simply presented forcefully and the intended recipient up and flees. As said many, many times in the past (one quote from the old British TV show "Dads Army" springs to mind) "they don't like it up 'em!"

If on the other hand the attacker shows any reluctance at all in closing and drawing blood, it all becomes a bit of a joke. Speed and (especially) AGRESSION is key.

[Targan]

Gurkhas. Fists full of cold steel and death in their eyes. Terrifying.