
The Army thought a veteran faked his health issues while having lead poisoning - mhkool
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/magazine/lead-poisoning-military-soldiers.html
======
tomhoward
I've had cause to research the topic of lead (and other metals) toxicity quite
extensively.

A key factor seems to be the body's propensity to produce metallothionein [1],
proteins that bind metallic compounds in the body, either to metabolise and
utilise them (in the case of beneficial metals like zinc, copper, iron,
selenium etc), or to remove them (in the case of toxic metals like lead,
mercury, aluminium, cadmium etc).

This propensity seems to be determined by genetic predisposition and/or
genetic expression in response to environmental stimuli.

This is why, in a group of people subjected to similar levels of environmental
lead exposure (e.g., soldiers in the same military unit, children in the same
town with contaminated water), only some will exhibit symptoms.

Here's my own experience:

I have not done any military service as an adult, nor used firearms more than
a handful of times. (I participated in army cadets in high school but it was
little more than boy-scout training - camping, survival skills, hiking, etc).

But I did spend a few years in my late teens/early 20s working in an
electronics factory soldering circuit boards. I grew up in the last few years
of leaded car fuel still being commonplace. I also grew up in an old house
that may (or may not) have had lead water pipes.

For much of my life, I've experienced a complex set of vague, but moderately
debilitating symptoms. Nothing apparently life-threatening, but always
frustrating and often painful.

In childhood it manifested as respiratory problems, learning/cognition
difficulties (including modest academic and sporting performance even though I
tried hard at both and was often assessed as being of high natural ability),
social difficulties, anxiety and mood instability, tinnitus, and digestive
issues.

In adulthood it progressed into conditions such as depression, chronic fatigue
syndrome, endocrine problems, painful muscle tension in the back, head, neck
and hip regions, dizziness/confusion/fuzzy vision at times, among other things
that have come and gone along the way.

I happened to do a home urine test just this morning, something I do from time
to time. It indicated the presence of lead in my urine, which has routinely
been the case for the past year or more.

I've also sent hair samples to a commercial testing lab every 6-24 months over
the past 10 years, which have consistently suggested accumulations in my body
of lead and other metals including aluminium, cadmium, mercury and others.

People may react with skepticism that home urine tests and commercial hair
tests are of any clinical validity.

Fair enough.

But, as the linked article explains, you just can't easily get this stuff
considered, tested and diagnosed by mainstream doctors.

I've seen multiple mainstream doctors over the years, and the best they can
ever offer is anxiety or anti-depressant medication. They'll run tests on all
the standard stuff - cholesterol, Vitamin D, iron... that's usually about it.
Everything always shows up close enough to normal and they tell you you're
fine and send you on your way.

But despite doctors' assurances, I haven't felt fine, and my ability to live a
normal life, compared to most other people I observe, has not been fine.

So I do the only thing that seems to be available to me, which is home urine
tests and commercial-lab hair tests. And they tell me something thing that
makes sense when I read things like the linked article; there's just too much
lead in my body.

In the 10+ years since this possibility became apparent and I started doing
these kinds of tests, I've done a lot of work to get my physiology to a state
where it could remove the metals from my system. I've considered doing
chelation therapy but I understand that carries its own risks (i.e., removing
important nutrients and moving toxic metals to areas where they can cause more
harm), and that you're better off just supporting your body to detoxify at its
own pace.

It seems to be working, slowly but surely. That would be why the lead is
showing up in my urine now, after not doing so in the first few years; as
alluded to in the article, it's been accumulated in my bones and is now coming
out.

My health, and life, is steadily improving. People keep saying I'm looking
healthier and functioning better. My fitness keeps improving. My muscle
tension and pain keeps subsiding. My work performance and career seems to be
on the up.

But boy, it's been tough to get through, and all the more difficult through
the lack of mainstream medical recognition, and from the ridicule that
inevitably comes your way as soon as you start talking about testing methods
and healing techniques that are outside the mainstream.

That's probably the toughest part. I'm a scientifically-minded person from a
family of mainstream science and medical professionals, yet due to the hand
I've been dealt, in the absence of any other options, I've been forced to
venture outside the mainstream, and have found myself being the subject of
ridicule and scorn at times.

Anyone who has read this far might want to think about that next time you mock
someone for seeking help from non-mainstream practitioners like naturopaths,
acupuncturists, chiropractors, etc. You probably have little idea of just how
much difficulty and frustration they've been through before winding up there,
or what undiagnosed underlying issue has caused their predicament.

I know I'm not alone in having these challenges, and I know plenty of people
have it a lot worse than me - particularly those lacking the financial means
and family+social support that I’ve had.

With that in mind, it's high time that we started taking this problem
seriously.

Knowing what I know now, it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that lead
and other metals toxicity is an explanation for a huge amount of the
debilitating illness that mainstream medicine is currently unable to diagnose
and treat.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallothionein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallothionein)

~~~
scottlamb
Thank you for sharing your story, and I'm glad to hear what you're doing is
slowly working. I have a couple questions:

> I've done a lot of work to get my physiology to a state where it could
> remove the metals from my system.

What does this mean? Are you talking about the usual healthy diet, exercise,
and sleep, or something more specific to lead exposure?

> It seems to be working, slowly but surely. That would be why the lead is
> showing up in my urine now, after not doing so in the first few years; as
> alluded to in the article, it's been accumulated in my bones and is now
> coming out.

Does the hair test reflect more your long-term overall health? do the positive
urine tests correlate with drops in the hair tests?

~~~
tomhoward
Good questions, thanks.

> What does this mean? Are you talking about the usual healthy diet, exercise,
> and sleep, or something more specific to lead exposure?

Nothing specific to lead or metals toxicity, no, at least not these days.

Just a steady effort to look after my body and mind.

In short: sensible diet, a small number of supplements, moderate exercise,
some breathing exercises, but a big focus on emotional healing work.

The diet just involves eating a solid amount of animal protein and green
vegetables, and avoiding junk. I'm not fastidous these days, as my gut is now
pretty tolerant of things, even of gluten and grains if it's in well-made food
like good quality pasta or sourdough bread. A coffee or two a day for
liver/gallbladder flushing - but not too much as it can bring on anxiety and
insomnia if I have too much.

The supplements I currently take are fish oil, a combined
calcium+phosphorus+magnesium+VitD tablet, zinc and CoQ10 - but that changes.

The exercise I do is basically just walking or jogging 10,000 steps/day on
average, and a bit of boxing bag training every week or two to give the
adrenal glands a moderate workout and promote hormone production. Also, a
weekly pilates session to stretch muscles and strengthen the core. Regular
exercise is particularly important when detoxing, to keep the lymphatic system
moving.

Breathing exercises might be just long deep breaths, yoga breathing or
occasional "holotropic breathwork" (which is also an emotional healing
technique). Breath is one of the major toxin exit pathways, so increasing the
respiration rate is a good way to increase detoxification.

A major focus these days is emotional healing practices. I've gone really deep
on subconscious emotional healing for about the past 7 years, and I am now
comfortable in the belief that there is a strong link between deeply held
emotions (trauma, worry, fear, anger, resentment, arrogance) and the body's
propensity to retain metals and other toxins. Veteran cell biologist Dr Bruce
Lipton [1] seems to be the leading proponent of links between emotions/trauma
and genetic expression/physiology (though not specifically to do with
metals/toxins, just general physiology). I spend about 30 minutes per day
doing that, and see a practitioner about once every two months.

When I started out on this journey about 10 years ago, I went pretty heavily
into nutrition-balancing diets and supplements programs, as recommended by Dr
Lawrence Wilson [2]. For 2 years I basically just ate animal protein and
steamed green vegetables, plus lots of sulphuric vegetables - garlic & leeks
mostly. I avoided all gluten grains, sugar, alcohol, nightshade vegetables,
anything else that seemed problematic. I also undertook a lot of detox
practices - daily infrared saunas for sweating and to reduce inflammation,
frequent liver/gallbladder cleansing, detox-promoting supplements like Vit C
and taurine.

But I don't really do that stuff anymore. I think it was necessary early on
when my body and life were quite seriously out of balance, but as every year
passes it becomes more resilient and the need to restrict my diet and
undertake unorthodox detox practices keeps subsiding.

> Does the hair test reflect more your long-term overall health? do the
> positive urine tests correlate with drops in the hair tests?

I started writing an answer to this but it's long and even more convoluted
than what I've written above, and I've decided it's not the right forum to go
deep into it.

The short version: hair testing and urine testing of nutrients and toxins is a
complex business but once you've learned enough about it, it does make sense,
and yes the hair test results do align with long-term physiological changes
and feelings of wellbeing.

Feel free to email me (address in profile) if you want to know more.

[1] Bruce Lipton is a pioneering stem cell biologist from Stanford, who, in
his research, observed the way environmental stimuli substantially alter cell
function, and has since gone deep on the topic of epigenetics, i.e., altered
gene expression based on environment and emotions/beliefs. His theories are
explained in his 2006 best-seller, The Biology of Belief. He's dismissed by
some mainstream devotees as a bumbling, ageing quack who handwaves too much
about quantum physics, and I find that critique has some merit, but in my
experience, what he's right about is far more important than what he's wrong
about.

[2] Dr Lawrence Wilson is an Arizona-based physician and naturopath who is the
leading proponent of hair-mineral testing and nutritional balancing for
healing of chronic illness. He was an acolyte of Dr Paul Eck, who in the 1970s
did extensive research into the correlations between hair mineral levels and
physiological conditions. I find Wilson's ideas somewhat useful, and were very
valuable to me early on my healing journey. However they are limited, and
inadequate without other ideas and healing practices, particularly the
emotional techniques I've adopted more recently (Wilson considers emotional
healing to be vital to overall healing, but his recommended technique is
limited to a very basic form of meditation, which I found inadequate). Also,
Wilson is a conservative Christian, who has some very old-fashioned and
conservative ideas around politics and morality. He'a also dogmatically anti-
vax, which I'm not on board with.

Learning how to sort the wheat from the chaff has been one of the most
important parts of this process :)

------
bpchaps
Holy crap. This very much matches my experiences. I'm not military, but I used
to shoot air rifles competitively in high school. I was _definitely_
overexposed to lead. I remember my fingers would literally be coated in lead,
and I don't remember even once hearing that we should wash our hands after
shooting.

My experience with trying to get a medical professional to actually give a
shit about the matter is exceptionally frustrating. Every doctor that I've
ever spoken to have all come just short of laughing in my face when I try to
self diagnose myself, and without exception, try to send me to get blood tests
- which give no indication of lead poisoning except in recent exposure. I
really just want some closure on this, since I know there's not much I can do
treatment wise. Getting a doctor to take it seriously is an uphill battle...

~~~
rdl
One of the top firearms instructors globally (Massad Ayoob) is utterly
paranoid about lead -- he has special range clothes/shoes, changes before
getting into his vehicle in the way one would do with hazmat-contaminated
clothing, and has the stuff commercially laundered outside his home. I think
it's mainly out of concern for children/grandchildren in his home, but it was
pretty impressive.

I started keeping lead-removal wipes in all my range bags after this. The
number of times I've seen people go through 500-1k rounds at the range in the
morning during a class, then eat a sandwich or something without even washing
hands, is..a lot.

~~~
vorpalhex
I buy the lead-removal wipes in bulk and hand them out like candy. I also
notice all the ranges near me keep lead removal soap in the bathrooms.

.22 ammo is the worst in this regard, just lead everywhere - which given that
it's usually used in bulk given how cheap it is...

~~~
rdl
This stuff, right? [https://hygenall.com/shooting-
sports/](https://hygenall.com/shooting-sports/)

(I'm pretty much a 9mm shooter (124gr CCI/Speer TMJ Lawman 124gr, or Gold Dots
-- or SIG Frangible when I'm at SIG Academy or TR; 5.56 ranging from cheap
M193 to M855 to non-penetrator 62gr to 75gr or 77gr TAP or OTM/IMI Razorcore.
I also run a fair bit of 12ga. Worst thing I do is a RH X95 bullpup,
suppressed, in off-hand drills, which is basically all the exhaust in my
face/neck area on every shot.)

------
village-idiot
I believe the US army has created an EPA superfund site out of one of its
rifle ranges due to the sheer volume of lead that built up into the earthen
berms where privates learned how to shoot. Just because the kinetic energy has
been taken out of the bullet doesn’t mean you can just ignore them. A similar
effect has happened in former battle grounds, leaving the locals exposed to
all of the known consequences of early life lead exposure including
(ironically) an increased propensity for violence.

For these reasons the Army has expressed an interest in developing a non-toxic
rifle bullet that’s cheap enough for their usages. Swaged copper bullets
exist, but at ~$1 a pop they’re appropriate for hunters and not for an army
that goes through billions of bullets.

Unfortunately many people on the webs are upset about this, perhaps out of the
misguided opinion that we’re not being cruel enough in our foreign wars. In
reality it’s well within US interests to reduce lead exposure to soldiers and
combat zone civilians, especially to ensure that those zones transition better
to peace once the fighting is over.

~~~
winter_blue
> A similar effect has happened in former battle grounds, leaving the locals
> exposed to all of the known consequences of early life lead exposure
> including (ironically) an increased propensity for violence.

Has there been a study showing this correlation? As far as I know, countries
that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan and Germany, are _less_ violent
on average, than the US. And note: the mainland continental US has been
relatively at peace, and has not had any major domestic hostilities since
1865.

Also, have bullets always (historically) had lead? Or is this something that
only newer ammo (since WWII) have?

~~~
Mediterraneo10
> As far as I know, countries that were shattered in World War 2, like Japan
> and Germany, are less violent on average

Mainland Japan did not see any ground fighting, only firebombing and the two
atomic bombs. Therefore, one would not expect the locals to have been exposed
to the results of infantry firing thousands and thousands of bullets.

~~~
vkou
And most of the fighting in WW2 took place way outside German soil.

By the time the frontline reached Germany, the war was almost over.

------
snazz
I was guessing that this was going to be about lead in the water, but instead
it’s about airborne lead from ammunition. Since this seems like nothing new, I
wonder if there any undiagnosed historical cases as well.

~~~
megous
Lead contamintaion as a result of high use of lead and other metals (like
mercury) during war (and after) is certainly a known and studied thing:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/)

So it wouldn't surprise me if many soldiers would be affected too.

~~~
tyingq
I recall reading something similar about the depleted uranium rounds that A10s
and other weapons dumped all over the middle east.

~~~
xnyan
Not just A10s but bunker busters and all kinds of other munitions where you
need the hardest metal shell material that is practically available in
quantity. They get shot deep in the earth and leach metals into the soil and
thus the plant and animal life and it's already a problem with some crops in
the middle east.

------
kurtisc
Workers at a firing range I used to go to were sent home for weeks if they
were exposed to too much lead. I am shocked a well funded army couldn't do the
same.

~~~
mistrial9
heavy metals bio-accumulate over an entire lifetime AFAIK; going home for any
number of weeks doesnt stop that. Is lead exposure this way somehow different
?

~~~
AllegedAlec
You can do chelation to get rid of most of it, in most cases.

------
Nasrudith
I think in the future they will consider us in the past complete idiots for
using lead for anything except /maybe/ radiation shielding because of the
neurotoxic effects and it being well known as a danger.

It will seem as dumb as using radium paint and radioactive "tonics" except
that radiotherapy is a legitimate thing unlike lead therapy.

~~~
Cthulhu_
I don't really get why you worry about toxins in weaponry used to kill people
TBH.

~~~
dwater
What percentage of ammunition fired do you think kills people directly? And
how many people do you think are exposed to that ammunition but not targeted
by it?

~~~
stirfrykitty
It's sadly low in combat due to the chaos and lack of time to engage properly.
It's similar to the police. It's something like 18-20% direct hits. What
people who have never been military or police may not realize is that when
your body goes into fight/flight mode, you lose your fine motor skills for
gross motor skills. This is a very real thing. Training can compensate for
this to a degree, but doesn't remove it. As the Corps used to say: "The more
your sweat in peacetime the less you bleed in war." Also a person falls to the
lowest level of training they have received during an incident. If you have
developed great muscle memory and train hard, you should do fairly well. So
many things come into play: learning how the weapon operates normally, how to
tap/rack/bang, clear malfunctions, magazine changes, weapons maintenance--all
these play a role in how well troops do when the chips are down.

------
kyleblarson
A gun shop and range in Bellevue Washington had a serious lead issue a few
years back: [http://projects.seattletimes.com/2014/loaded-with-
lead/2/](http://projects.seattletimes.com/2014/loaded-with-lead/2/)

------
rdl
> In a single six-week course, each student would fire upward of 150,000
> rounds

Whoa. 3571 rounds per day for every day for 42 days?

~~~
mikestew
Obviously the ammunition is purchased very much in bulk, but let's say, I
dunno, $0.05/round? (I pay around $0.25 or more for .45ACP for a handgun.)
Carry the one...$1250/week just in ammo.

~~~
rdl
$0.25/rd is a fair price for 9mm or 5.56mm. However, it is 25000 rounds per
week. $6250/wk. Plus a bunch of other costs far exceeding the ammo costs. I
don't think the 150k rounds round count is reasonable, unless a lot of that is
fired from something other than individual weapons used by the servicemember.

------
johnminter
In addition, there are lead issues in older military housing on bases like Ft.
Meade. My youngest granddaughter had a false positive on her test; several
other children were not so lucky. The good news is that the top brass at the
highest levels are working to resolve the problem.

------
zeristor
Chelation therapy seems to solve their problems, but doesn't that mean that it
goes into sewers and will become a problem there?

------
wolco
It seems like the most unhealthly act one can do is join the army.

~~~
stirfrykitty
That's a bit of a stretch. Of the entire military, less than half are actual
combat troops. While everyone does and should get firearms familiarization
training, only the combat troops have regular contact with weapons.

I served 8 years in the USMC and was in a combat MOS. I doubt there was a
weapon in the inventory we didn't touch on a somewhat regular basis
(individual and crew served). In my units, our commanders were positively
insistent we learned not only our own weapon systems, but also those of
potential enemies. To that effect, there were a number of captured AK-47s,
AK-74s, RPKs, Makarov, Tokarev, Mosin-Nagant, you name it in our unit armory.
We learned them all (and cleaned them all). We also learned the weapons
systems of our allies, like the British, French, and Israelis when we had
military exchange programs, which are tons of fun.

Unless you are in a combat MOS, you are pretty safe being in the rear with the
gear, as it were.

~~~
jki275
Actually less than 10% are combat MOS -- the USMC may be significantly more
though.

The vast majority are techs and support troops.

~~~
stirfrykitty
The USMC is significantly more. Everyone in the USMC is first and foremost a
rifleman. Your actual MOS is secondary. The other branches are the opposite.
You do your job primarily with weapons training and use a far outside
possibility.

The USMC has the most strenuous small arms requirements outside of actual
special forces. It starts in boot camp and you must qualify every year until
reaching E-8 or 0-5, respectively. The Corps is HUGE on marksmanship, and
Marines are expected to hit targets out to 500M with iron sights, although
these days, the kids get ACOGS, which I didn't have. Pistol out to 25M. Your
promotion, in part, depends on how well you do. No one wants to go unq
(unqualified) or not much better, wear the lowest level, which is Marksman
(referred to as Pizza Box) due to the shape of the medal one must wear on
their uniform.

~~~
leroy_masochist
> Everyone in the USMC is first and foremost a rifleman. Your actual MOS is
> secondary. The other branches are the opposite.

Maybe put down the POG Kool-Ade and take a deep breath?

> although these days, the kids get ACOGS, which I didn't have

If you were the Commandant would you change this? Everyone has an ACOG on
their weapon in the fleet; doesn't it make sense to train like you fight?

~~~
jki275
He's exactly correct.

The ACOG vs iron sight thing has been a discussion for a long time. Basic
marksmanship is better taught with iron sights, scopes are awesome for real
use.

~~~
leroy_masochist
> Basic marksmanship is better taught with iron sights, scopes are awesome for
> real use.

Do we care about achieving some kind of platonic ideal of proper marksmanship
instruction, or do we care about familiarizing Marines with the weapons system
configuration they are going to actually use if they one day have the
privilege of launching rounds down a two-way range?

To be clear these are not mutually exclusive -- you still learn marksmanship
when you qual with an ACOG, despite the protestations of Old Corps internet
hardos -- but the latter should still be the priority.

The whole KD range routine is outdated anyway, no matter how much nostalgia we
may have for the RSOs' funny hats and the
"youmayfirewhenyourTAAAAAAAAARGETappears" spiel delivered over the inevitably
shitty loudspeaker.

~~~
stirfrykitty
The KD course is not outdated. I was one of those NCOs with the pith helmet
for 18 months. Not only the KD course, but also the pistol course. I was also
chosen to teach the Air Force and Army different skills on their own weapons
because I was very good at what I did. I actually went to school for this as a
secondary MOS. I can tell for a fact very few can adjust their dopes quickly
when they lose fine motor skills in the chaos of battle or training. The Army
regulars were shocked at the level we went to. The Rangers and Air Force PJs
we worked with were always up at the top with their skills by dint of their
job requirements. Even the famous Army AMU gives kudos to the Marines for the
KD course. I've worked with several of them in exchange programs. The Army is
largely an occupational force, while the Marines are an expeditionary force.
Short of the Rangers/SF types, the missions are almost always different and
the marksmanship skills are different, although they should be the same. The
Marines value high levels of marksmanship more than the other services. It's
not always about hop and pop. This is why the Corps copied the Russian
doctrine of a DM in all platoons. In some Russian platoons, there is a DM in
every squad, which is a fantastic idea. The little 5.56 is largely a poodle
shooter unless you're within 100M. .30 any day, every day.

~~~
leroy_masochist
> The KD course is not outdated. I was one of those NCOs with the pith helmet
> for 18 months. Not only the KD course, but also the pistol course.

Sorry for hurting your feelings with my last post.

> The little 5.56 is largely a poodle shooter unless you're within 100M. .30
> any day, every day.

Served me just fine in OIF. You ever deploy or are you getting your info from
Soldier of Fortune?

~~~
stirfrykitty
I assure you, my feelings are well intact. Everyone I worked with hated the
5.56. And yes, I've deployed, and to some odd places. Not only did our unit do
the sandpit, but a few us, myself included, assisted the Philippine Marines
with patrols in various locales in the PI.

Try an M-14 out for size or even an AR-10. World of difference. The power
factor between the two calibers is simply apples and oranges.

~~~
jki275
The rounds used today are not the rounds that were issued in Vietnam with the
first M16s.

Mk262 is quite effective and 5.56 is used by many militaries including the US.

"power factor"(that's actually a gun game term as I recall, I've never heard a
SEAL/Ranger/Marine or infantryman use it) has nothing to do with terminal
ballistics, weight of ammunition an infantryman has to carry, or performance
of the weapons.

The AR-10 is notoriously finnicky and there is zero logistics train to support
it anywhere in the world as it's not an issue weapon anywhere in the world,
the M14 platform is far heavier than the M4 and has a variety of problems that
were solved by the M16/M4, etc. etc. etc.

~~~
leroy_masochist
5.56 is also _by far_ the best squad level belt fed weapon round. The
precision of fires you can achieve at around 300-400m with a SAW by observing
the beaten zone is pretty awesome, and that's largely a function of the low
recoil of the 5.56 round. Furthermore, 1000 rounds of SAW ammo weighs like
30lbs less than 1000 rounds of 240 ammo. When it's 120 degrees out, that's
non-trivial.

And despite what Old Corps gun nuts might tell you, there is plenty of "power
factor" (LOL) in the 5.56 round. It gets the job done....

~~~
jki275
I know Army SF Snipers who shoot customized 5.56 rifles, obviously using
heavier rounds and such.

It's a great round -- I love 5.56.

~~~
leroy_masochist
Yeah there's a 75-grain 5.56 round tuned specifically for the HK416 that SOCOM
is currently playing around with. Sweet setup. Don't know how widely it's
fielded though.

~~~
stirfrykitty
While the 5.56 does improve with time and is lighter, the 6MM or .30 is still
better IMHO. Were I given a choice between carrying an extra few pounds and
having better terminal ballistics, I'll take that.

Being that the average Infantry loadout is still 6 30-round magazines and a
pistol with 3 15-round magazines, I'll take the heavier 6MM or .30 since the
weight difference is not that great.

The M-249 SAW is a fine weapon and I've used them several times. They are good
for what they are designed for, which is laying down suppressive fire for a
squad. I still agree with the Russian doctrine of one DM per squad. If every
squad had long(er) range capability, this would go a long way to helping
squads not have to call in LR support or use the SAW so much.

You're obviously an intelligent man, and I agree with you on some points, but
you also have to remember that the Marines and Army do things differently. The
tactics and weapons doctrines are much different. The Army does this better in
some instances. I admire the FFL and how they do squad and platoon tactics.
Those guys are extremely well trained, often better than us, and they don't
tend to wait around for permission when the SHTF, something that has gotten
many a soldier and Marine killed. Say what you want about the French or
Russians, but they give their platoons much more leeway in combat ops.
Americans, since Vietnam, need to have almost express permission to engage
unless directly fired upon.

Having said all of this, I'm not a war planner or an expert, just one man's
experience and observations. We (Americans) can and should learn from other
forces. They often do things better. For example, we send the 82nd to French
Guiana for jungle warfare. We send troops (A & M) to Israel to learn CQC. The
Philippine Marines are likewise excellent jungle fighters.

~~~
jki275
The average infantry loadout does not include a handgun.

6mm and 30 are "better" if you don't have to carry it -- you're also
forgetting the weapon is much heavier. For the vast majority of infantry
encounters, it adds zero capability to the fight.

I'm curious as to when you were in the military, and what military you were
in.

~~~
stirfrykitty
USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it.
The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty
of sense in certain environments. I did lots of "jungle time", as it were, so
our mission was different. Marines do many different things than the Army.
Loads of patrols for drug interdiction, for example. Never saw American
soldiers on these. Ditto patrolling in PI for insurgents. Everyone armed to
the teeth for these. When you're in Thailand or the PI and you're miles from
re-supply and helos cannot see you for the canopy, you are humping tons of
crap that you normally wouldn't, although my base loadout always included a
handgun, no matter the environment. Also please remember that back when I was
in, and even now, the Corps gets the crappy end of the stick where gear is
concerned. Most of our stuff was Army hand-me-downs. The Corps uses Blue, not
Green dollars. All of our vehicles were prior Navy or Army. Quite a few of our
weapons were also. They were all retrofitted with new parts (spring kits,
etc.), but we had largely older gear. We were still using the AN/PRC-77 radios
back then, which is a Vietnam-era radio kit.

Editing to answer forgotten point: The new 6MM AR-pattern rifles weigh no more
than their 5.56 counterparts empty, and very little difference loaded. The
size and weight of the ammo is likewise negligible. These are being tested by
the US at the moment in certain theaters and are well liked. They are being
considered as DM rifles, which makes perfect sense. The US is taking a page
out of Russia's book to have a DM per squad. This should have been done ages
ago. For little weight gain, you add serious capability. The 6MM is no slouch,
and has the best ballistic coefficient of any round in the inventory. The
facts are out there to read. It's all very interesting.

~~~
jki275
Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a
generation and four wars ago.

I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding.

Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was
talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is
logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies.
Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56
and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and
5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in
the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues
you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not
generally relevant.

The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a
DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is
not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which
will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to
change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever
happen.

~~~
stirfrykitty
I'm well aware of the advances. However, I can tell you that 6mm or .30 trumps
5.56 every single time w/o exception and the military is actually looking to
replace the 5.56 with a 6mm cartridge. 5.56 is a weak performer. There are
myriad reports of troops having to double/triple tap enemy combatants to get
them down. This is a waste of ammo and saps faith in their own gear. 6mm or.30
doesn't tend to have this issue. The energy dump is much, much more. A .243 or
6.5 has more energy at 500 than a 5.56 does at 100 and with a barely-
noticeable recoil difference, especially in a gas-operated platform.

The M-14 is on the way out as a DM rifle anyway in favor of newer platforms
like the HK417 or FN MK20. We can disagree all day long, but ballistics don't
lie. The 5.56 is barely an intermediate round. It's still a .22 caliber round
with all the inherent faults. The Corps referred to it as a "poodle shooter"
when I served. It wasn't well liked. Ditto the myriads of soldiers I know who
share a disdain for it.

I find it interesting that of all the people I know who are civilian shooters
who were in the military in combat MOSs and who use an MSR of some type, none
are in 5.56. They are either in .243, 6.5. or 7.62. You can guess why. They
don't trust the 5.56 round other than for nuisance animals like coyotes. I've
seen coyotes take 5.56 rounds center mass behind either leg and limp off to
die in the bush. Never seen or had this happen to me or guys I hunt with using
a .243, 6.5, or 7.62. They are DRT. And we don't hunt with FMJ.

If a superior (than issue) round being used on coyotes is suspect on occasion,
you can imagine the troops who actually need decent rounds are hungry for
something that actually performs as it should. 5.56 has been shown to be weak
and ineffective except in a crew-served hail of rounds scenario or extremely
close in. 6mm/.30 allows troops to keep the enemy further out there while
still taking them down.

Military is working to get off the 5.56...
[https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-
ar...](https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-army-556mm-
rifle-round-replacement.html)

[https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-
army...](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2018/10/05/the-armys-saw-
and-m4-replacements-will-both-fire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/)

~~~
jki275
You're using so much of the silly non-shooter/non-military buzzwords that I'm
pretty sure you've never carried a weapon or spent a single day on active
duty.

I'm done with this discussion, as almost everything you're posting is just
made up absurdity at this point.

5.56 has been used to great effect since the Vietnam war. It's still in use by
the entire NATO alliance and will likely be the cartridge of choice there for
the next forty years as well.

~~~
leroy_masochist
Ya dude the fetishization of Russians and French Foreign Legion is a dead
giveaway. Soldier of Fortune lifetime subscriber.

------
vectorEQ
i feel very sorry for this veteran, and don't mean to mock anyone. but i do
see the irony (punception?:D) of bullets poisoning the people who shoot them
chronically... sorry if that makes me a bad person.

