In message , Stephen Harding
writes
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Sorry, but Hackworth is more interested in pandering to prejudice than
rational analysis. (For instance, his cheerful bluster about the
"useless" 9mm pistol and the "ineffective" M16 family... tell you what,
he can stand in front of me and I'll put a few rounds from either into
him; then he can tell me how "ineffective" they are)

Although I've come around to your sort of opinion towards
Hackworth, the "effectiveness" argument is sort of bogus
isn't it?

The argument is that these weapons are apparently so lacking in
lethality that enemy soldiers laugh off multiple hits, crying out "stop
that, it tickles" - on the rare occasions when these weapons apparently
fire at all, they apparently being so unreliably that it's a miracle any
US soldiers ever get a round off in combat before their weapons
permanently jam.

Hackworth's vilifying the M-16 family in a way that makes the L85 look
like a paragon of reliability (oddly enough, the L85 _did_ perform very
well during TELIC)

A muzzle loading, black powder Kentucky Rifle would be
"effective" under such a test, no?

Most definitely - the complaints are reliability and lethality, and a
well-handled muzzle loader should do well on both scores provided the
weather's not too damp Rapidity of fire, combat load, functionality
in rain, et cetera are not measures of effectiveness Hackworth mentions
so I'm leaving them out too.

His rules, not mine.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk