Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Friday, June 13, 2025

Ukraines Drone strike highlights the surprise of that delivery system.

 I snagged this from "Defense Weekly", it talked more about the Ukrainian Strike against the Russian Bomber Fleet, to me this is a strategic attack, it takes part of their nuclear delivery assets out of play.  I don't know if this was a game changer for the Ukrainians, but I do know that Putin did lose face by this incident.


satellite view of damaged Russian bombers

Poststrike satellite imagery revealed the charred remains of two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 bombers hit by Ukrainian drones at Olenya air base near the Barents Sea.

Credit: Maxar Technologies

Three Ukrainian attack drones struck a Sukhoi Su-57 fighter on June 8, 2024, at a base 365 mi. deep inside Russia. Satellite imagery showed the strike damaged the stealth fighter, a small victory for Kyiv in a long, difficult war.

That isolated action a year ago proved to be only a warning shot—or perhaps a sneak preview. On June 1, 2025, Ukraine struck again on a larger and deeper scale. In a creative aerial ambush devised 18 months and nine days earlier by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), semitrucks hauling portable cabins smuggled scores of armed drones deep into the Russian interior, parking in locations stretching from along the Finnish border on the Barents Sea to near the shores of Lake Baikal in Siberia.

  • At least 11 Russian aircraft were destroyed in the June 1 attacks
  • The strikes introduce new offensive options and reveal defensive vulnerabilities

Hiding in plain sight within range of several bomber bases, these “Trojan trucks” opened their cabin roofs and released more than 100 remotely piloted, first-person-view (FPV) drones. Satellite imagery confirms Ukrainian estimates that the drones destroyed at least 11 Russian aircraft, including nine bombers. Dozens more may have been damaged.

For Ukraine, the impact of Operation Spider’s Web—the SBU’s code name for the covert drone attacks—may play out for months. It is not clear how many of the aircraft destroyed were involved in strikes in Ukraine or even flyable, but the widespread nature of the attacks may still have some effect. In addition to the embarrassment from the failure to stop such a brazen operation, “Russia will likely struggle to replace the aircraft that Ukrainian forces damaged and destroyed,” the Institute for the Study of War states in a June 1 assessment.

The attack also highlights a global trend in aerial warfare with implications for offensive planning and defensive preparations.

Springing attacks on enemy aircraft while they are parked on seemingly friendly soil is nothing new. At the outset of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli Air Force launched a surprise raid into Egypt, destroying 452 aircraft on the ground. Nor is it new to blend conventional airpower with special operations units like the SBU. In 1942 the British Special Air Service infiltrated a Luftwaffe base in Egypt, then used machine guns loaded with tracer rounds to destroy or damage 37 parked aircraft.

Attacks on enemy airfields also feature in planning for future wars. In 2017, U.S. Air Force then-Brig. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich published an online essay after spending a year drafting the strategy for acquiring what became the Boeing F-47. In a future conflict, Grynkewich wrote, Northrop Grumman B-21s would strike enemy airfields while the next air superiority fighter swept the skies of any aircraft that had managed to take off.

Meanwhile, interest in ground-launched, short-range FPV drones is spreading. A day after the Operation Spider’s Web attacks, the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) launched Project GI, a competition offering $20 million in prizes to companies that can rapidly deliver such weapon systems with ranges beyond 20 km (12.4 mi.). Project GI aims to close a gap in the U.S. drone inventory.

“Today, warfighters lack the unmanned systems needed to train for combat and prevail if called upon to use them,” DIU Director Doug Beck said June 2. “Doing this [project] at speed will in turn help catalyze the necessary scaling and readiness through major acquisition and training efforts.”

U.S. Army Patriot battery
A U.S. Army Patriot battery guards Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, but Air Force leaders urgently want a more robust, layered system to protect air bases from air and missile attacks. Credit: Staff Sgt. Kenneth Boyton/U.S. Air Force

Although Ukraine lacks air superiority and a long-range bomber fleet, the country’s repeated attacks on air bases inside Russia shows the advance of technology in the air littoral, a layer of airspace usually defined as below 10,000 ft. For Operation Spider’s Web, the SBU reportedly deployed Ukrainian manufacturer First Contact’s Osa drones. Each 5-kg (11-lb.) quadcopter can carry up to 3.3 kg of explosives to targets up to 8 km away, according to the manufacturer’s website.

Meager attempts to protect the Russian bombers by covering the upper surfaces with old tires—possibly to confuse vision-based, autonomous targeting systems—failed to save the aircraft.

In addition to creating new offensive opportunities, the successful Ukrainian operation exposes defensive vulnerabilities that are as common in Europe and the U.S. as they are in Russia. Over the past two years, reports of unauthorized drone sightings have plagued several U.S. air bases, including a Lockheed Martin F-22 operating base in Virginia and a space launch complex in California. Last year, the Air Force paused the award of the Next-Generation Air Dominance contract for several months to review the original requirements, including whether the vulnerability of air bases could negate the advantages of a powerful new fighter.

“The F-47 is an amazing aircraft, but it’s going to die on the ground like everything else if we don’t protect it,” Gen. David Allvin, the Air Force chief of staff, said at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security in Washington on June 3.

Concerns about air base vulnerability are driving negotiations with the Army over whether the Air Force should be responsible for defending its own air bases. The Navy provides a layered air defense system to protect its fleet, but a long-standing policy requires the Air Force to rely on the Army for such protection.

“The bottom line is that the joint force needs more robust ground-based air defense, whether it’s from an airfield or someplace that the Marines are operating or the Army is operating,” Allvin said. “We do continue to need robust point defense for agile combat employment to work.”

In Europe, the threat of similar attacks is acute. Most air bases are in the open countryside and near public roads. Their movements are easily monitored, and the aircraft are parked in the open air, often undispersed. Many of these air bases lack anti-drone equipment or the spare personnel to operate it if they did.

Some countries, like France and Germany, have multiple bases with transport aircraft and airlifters, but the UK, for example, has piled all of its air transport assets into one location, Brize Norton, to save costs.

NATO’s Air Command is urging member countries to develop agile combat employment concepts to generate sustained combat airpower through dispersal. However, this does not necessarily work for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, which are often tethered to main or forward operating bases so their intelligence products can be processed and distributed.

While tankers and transports can operate from commercial airports, they tend to stick out.

China is increasingly building air bases with shelter infrastructure for large aircraft, including the KJ-500 airborne early warning aircraft based on the Shaanxi Y-8 turboprop airlifter. While not hardened, these 60-m-wide (197-ft.) structures with closing doors at both ends make the aircraft difficult to target on the ground, as overhead imagery cannot identify what aircraft is in a shelter. They would also prevent attack by small drones like those Ukraine used in Russia. These structures can be found at a People’s Liberation Army Air Force base near Dalian, at Leizhuang near Guiyang, and at Jiujiang’s Lushan air base.

Thursday, June 12, 2025

250 Years of Infantry Long Rifles.

 I enjoyed "clipping" this article from "American Rifleman especially since I own 3 examples of the rifles shown, well until that durn kayak accident*sniff*Sniff*.

   There they are in the case, before that durn Kayak....*sniff*  I owned the 03 since the late 1980's brought her from Germany.   Bought the Garand much later.



On the firing Line.  I use 150 grain bullets as to not overstress the "OPROD" on the Garand.  I need to find time to go to the CMP and buy some "Garand" ammo.



  Here is my original AR-15, built her in 1991, before the AWB.  before all the drama.  Durn Kayaks and canoe's should be registered weapons of mass destructions lemme tell you. 





Bunker Hill To Baghdad collage text on image noting FROM BUNKER HILL TO BAGHDAD 250 YEARS OF U.S. INFANTRY LONGARMS
Painting by Don Troiani, Photo by Sean A. Foley/U.S. Army

Following the outbreak of conflict in Massachusetts in April 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in May 1775 to function as a de facto government for the fledgling and tenuous colonial union. When the delegates met, a British army was bottled up in Boston by armed militiamen who had come from surrounding counties and colonies. A countryside uprising fomented by British attempts at arms confiscation had, by late spring, developed into an organized military body, and the Congress recognized it as such on June 14, 1775, when it declared that the 22,000 men arrayed outside Boston were troops of the Continental Army. By unanimous vote, the assemblage appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief.

Just three days later, the Army would face its baptism by fire at the Battle of Bunker Hill, when the ragtag group of upstart colonials poured deadly volleys into the British troops advancing up the slopes of Breed’s Hill. Though the Army was eventually forced to retreat from its entrenchments, the British paid dearly for the ground gained, suffering more than 1,000 casualties across three assaults. The men who fought at Breed’s Hill initiated a martial tradition within the American spirit that continues into the present day. They were civilian-soldiers—armed with hunting fowlers, captured military arms and cobbled-together gunsmith creations—facing off against the supreme military power of the age. Soon after the Continental Army’s fight on the heights outside Boston, some semblance of standardization began to creep into its makeup, starting with its infantry arms.

Of course, a survey such as the one that follows cannot possibly be comprehensive, as countless volumes could be (and have been) filled with the stories and details of U.S. martial firearms, ammunition and equipment, along with the men who employed them, across the past 250 years. But, at this momentous anniversary, it’s worth appreciating, at least in a succinct way, how far U.S. small arms development has come, as well as how, in some ways, so little has changed.


Model 1763/66 Charleville flintlock smoothbore longarm with wood stock and right-side lockwork
Model 1763/66 Charleville
Shortly after the establishment of the Continental Army, the Second Continental Congress acknowledged the severe shortage of suitable military arms, ammunition and supplies by authorizing secret communications with France for the purpose of obtaining war materiel. These negotiations resulted in the arrival of several shiploads of arms by April 1777, bringing quantities of older French Model 1763/66 “Charleville” flintlock muskets to American shores. By war’s end, the Charleville would be widely issued within the Continental Army and would serve as one of the principal military longarms into the early American era. According to arms historian George Moller, French arms shipments during the Revolution totaled well over 100,000 guns, and the true number may be significantly higher. The smoothbore French musket stood out from common civilian-pattern arms used in and around the siege of Boston by its cut-back forestock that exposed several inches of the barrel behind the muzzle, providing space for a rectangular metal lug that enabled it to mount a 17" triangular bayonet. Its standardized, .69-cal. bore eased the logistics of supplying ammunition to the new Army. By order of the Continental Congress, Charleville muskets in U.S. service were marked with a “United States” surcharge mark commonly found on the lock, barrel and stock of surviving arms. By 1780, this marking would be changed to a simple “US” stamp.

Overall Length: 
60"
Barrel Length: 44"
Weight: 8 lbs., 6 ozs., to 10 lbs., 4 ozs. (depending on model)
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 24 to 40 paper cartridges (depending on cartridge box pattern)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1795 Springfield flintlock smoothbore musket right-side view wood stock silver metal work shown with bayonet
Model 1795 Springfield
With Gen. Washington’s approval, the site that would eventually become Springfield Armory was first set up in 1777 at the confluence of the Connecticut and Westfield rivers as the nation’s first military arsenal. But in its early years, the site was employed for storage and cartridge fabrication rather than armsmaking. Congress officially established Springfield Armory in 1794 as a location in which to build military small arms, a process that began with the Model 1795, which was patterned after the French flintlock muskets used to win American independence. So closely did these arms resemble the French guns that, at the time of manufacture, they were referenced as “U.S. Muskets, Charleville Pattern.” Due to the hand-fitting required in building 1795s, as well as the logistical challenges of establishing a new arms factory, only a few thousand of these muskets were made before the turn of the 19th century. Eventually, the establishment of a new federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Va.—now in West Virginia—along with the use of several independent contractors and the increasing self-sufficiency of the Springfield Armory, increased quantities of available arms. Springfield Armory alone manufactured more than 100,000 before production ceased in 1815. While supplemented by various civilian contract muskets, the 1795 served as the principal infantry arm for the U.S. military during the War of 1812.

Overall Length: 60"
Barrel Length: 44"
Weight: 9 lbs., 8 ozs.
Caliber:
 .69
Infantry Load: 
38 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1816 Springfield flintlock smoothbore longarm right-side view with wood stock brass parts right-side lock
Model 1816 Springfield
Early U.S. military muskets were largely built by hand, making manufacturing and repair slow and cumbersome. During his ambassadorship to France, Thomas Jefferson became familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts, as pioneered by Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval and Honoré Blanc, then being applied to the production of Model 1777 Charleville muskets used by French troops. Jefferson recommended that such manufacturing methods be implemented in American industry and supported early efforts by armsmakers, notably Eli Whitney, toward those ends. By 1812, several men, notably Commissary Gen. Callender Irvine and Ordnance Chief Decius Wadsworth, worked to incorporate interchangeable parts into American military arms. These efforts met varying degrees of success from the early 1800s until the 1840s.

Of the several infantry muskets produced during that period, the Model 1816 Springfield emerged as the most notable and widely produced variant, seeing use in various guises for nearly half a century. Largely based on the Model 1777 Charleville, save for a slightly shorter barrel and modified stock, the Model 1816 saw use in the Texas Revolution, the Mexican-American War and the early years of the Civil War. More than 700,000 were produced until the mid-1840s by various makers, more than any other U.S. martial flintlock, and the design saw its zenith in the short-lived Model 1840 flintlock musket, which was produced with interchangeable parts.

Overall Length: 58"
Barrel Length: 42"
Weight: 9 lbs., 11 ozs.
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 38 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1842 Springfield percussion sidelock rifle Mississippi rifle wood stock three band configuration
Model 1842 Springfield
Small-arms evolution and the advent of the American System of Manufacture in the first half of the 19th century gave rise to several innovations, notably the development of true parts interchangeability and the use of a percussion ignition system in place of a flintlock. Both advancements culminated in the Model 1842 Springfield, the first percussion-primed musket widely adopted by the U.S. Army, as well as the first U.S. infantry musket to be built entirely from machine-made interchangeable parts at both national armories.

Externally, and aside from its use of a percussion lock and bolster, the 1842 borrowed many features from the pre-existing Models 1816 and 1840 muskets and remained a smoothbore arm offering limited range and accuracy compared to contemporary service rifles. The advent of the rifle musket saw a number of 1842s later rifled for longer-range use. Production commenced in 1844, and while it saw little employment during the ensuing Mexican-American War, the Model 1842, in both rifled and smoothbore guises, served in large numbers during the Civil War. More than 270,000 were produced by the federal armories at Springfield and Harper’s Ferry.

Overall Length: 58"
Barrel Length: 42"
Weight: 9 lbs., 13 ozs.
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 40 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1855/1861 Springfield percussion rifles two comparison view wood stock longarms
Model 1855/1861 Springfield
French ordnance officials continued to spearhead innovations in firearm technology in the mid-19th century, and by the 1840s, Claude-Etienne Minié, building on the earlier work of Henri-Gustav Delvigne, had developed a hollow-base, cylindrical bullet with an iron plug that could be loaded easily into the bore of a muzzleloading rifle. When fired, the bullet would expand into shallow rifling grooves that provided spin and stability to the projectile in flight. Experiments at Harper’s Ferry Armory resulted in a variant of Minié’s projectile designed by Master Armorer James Burton. A version of this hollow-base bullet designed by Lt. James G. Benton would subsequently become the standard projectile used in the Model 1855 Springfield rifle musket, the first general-issue U.S. longarm to be rifled. Its unique Maynard priming system used a roll of waxed paper, dotted with pockets of percussion priming compound, that uncoiled and advanced with the cocking of the hammer, obviating the need for percussion caps.

By the eve of the Civil War, nearly 60,000 Model 1855s had been produced, but the wartime demand for huge quantities of shoulder arms necessitated a simplified variant that could be produced quickly and easily. The complicated and finicky Maynard primer system of the 1855 was eliminated in the Model 1861. By war’s end, more than 1.1 million Springfield-pattern muskets had been produced by Springfield Armory and many civilian makers contracted by the U.S. government to fulfill the huge demand for guns.

Overall Length: 56"
Barrel Length: 
40"
Weight: 9 lbs., 3 ozs.
Caliber: .58
Infantry Load: 40 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1873 Springfield sidelock percussion rifle shown with leather sling wood stock gun right-side view
Model 1873 Springfield
Wartime experiences in the 1860s underscored the utility of the self-contained metallic cartridge, and leading military powers quickly sought suitable shoulder arms that could make use of such technology. With prodigious quantities of muzzleloading rifle muskets on hand at the end of the Civil War, U.S. ordnance officials found an expedient solution from Erskine S. Allin, master armorer at Springfield Armory. Allin’s conversion process transformed now-obsolete muzzleloading rifle muskets into single-shot breechloaders through a hinged “trapdoor” that swung up and forward, simultaneously opening the breech end of the gun while also extracting and ejecting a spent cartridge. Early Allin conversion mechanisms were standardized in newly built U.S.-issue arms with the short-lived .50-cal. models of the late 1860s, but the adoption of the .45-70 Gov’t cartridge in 1873 resulted in a new rifle and carbine. Variants of the “Trapdoor Springfield” served the U.S. Army from the Indian Wars into the twilight years of the 19th century, and many saw active use with U.S. troops during the Spanish-American War.

Overall Length: 52"
Barrel Length: 32"
Weight: 8 lbs., 13 ozs.
Chambering: .45-70 Gov’t
Infantry Load: 70 cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1892 Krag-Jorgensen bolt-action rifle right-side view wood stock gun shown with leather sling
Model 1892 Krag-Jorgensen
Once again, French ordnance innovation spurred a new small-arms race at the end of the 19th century. Paul Vieille’s discovery of Poudre B, the first practical smokeless propellant, transformed rifle design by enabling the use of smaller-bore, higher-velocity ammunition. U.S. ordnance officials trialed several competing rifles in the early 1890s, and the design from Norwegians Ole Krag and Erik Jorgensen emerged as the winner and served as the U.S. Army’s first general-issue bolt-action service rifle in several model variations from 1894 to 1903.

Notable for its unique box magazine protruding from the right side of the action, the Krag-Jorgensen was the first repeating rifle to be generally issued to the U.S. Army. A magazine cut-off enabled it to be loaded and fired singly, a common feature in early bolt-action military rifles. The anemic performance of the .30-40 Krag cartridge for which it was chambered, along with inherent weaknesses in the receiver design, caused the Krag to be among the most short-lived U.S. military arms. Nearly 475,000 Krag rifles and carbines were produced under license by Springfield Armory from 1894 to 1904.

Overall Length: 49"
Barrel Length: 30"
Weight: 8 lbs., 7 ozs.
Chambering: .30-40 Krag
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1903 Springfield right-side view of bolt-action rifle wood stock
Model 1903 Springfield
During the Spanish-American War, U.S. Army troops faced Spanish soldiers armed with the Model 1893 Mauser, and captured examples were examined and tested by U.S. ordnance officials. After failed attempts to enhance the capabilities of then-issued Krag rifles, development began on what eventually became the Model 1903 Springfield. In terms of receiver design, much was borrowed from extant Mauser designs, notably the Models 1893 and 1898, along with some features from the pre-existing Krag—such as the magazine cut-off.

More than 3 million Model 1903 Springfields were produced, in all variants, from 1903 until 1944. While heavily supplemented by the Model 1917 during World War I, the Model 1903 remained the official U.S. service rifle until 1936 and saw heavy use during the early years of World War II. In its Model 1903A4 sniper configuration, the bolt-action Springfield saw service through the Korean War. Its .30-’06 Sprg. chambering would be an Army standard for more than 50 years and remained an outsized influence on ammunition design beyond the mid-20th century.

Overall Length: 43.5"
Barrel Length: 24"
Weight: 8 lbs., 11 ozs.
Chambering: .30-’06 Sprg.
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges (20 five-round stripper clips)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M1 Garand right-side view wood-stocked rifle semi-automatic
M1 Garand
Several semi-automatic rifles emerged in the early 20th century but saw limited military use. In the waning years of World War I, American inventor John Pedersen designed and built a device that allowed existing Model 1903 Springfield rifles to function as semi-automatic carbines, but the November Armistice of 1918 ended the conflict before the so-called Pedersen Device could be deployed. Further American development of semi-automatic designs continued into the 1920s before Springfield Armory engineer John C. Garand’s experimental T1E2 emerged as a clear winner for America’s first semi-automatic service rifle.

Using a unique, C-shaped en bloc clip holding eight staggered rounds of .30-’06 Sprg., the M1 was loaded through the top of the action and made ready to fire by allowing the reciprocating operating rod handle to move forward under spring pressure, thereby closing the rotating bolt. Propellant gas siphoned from a fired round entered a hole at the bottom of the barrel near the muzzle, which filled the gas cylinder below the barrel, propelling the operating rod and bolt rearward to extract a fired case and pick up the next round at the top of the en bloc clip. Once empty, the clip would spring from the locked-back action, prompting soldiers to insert a fresh clip.

Nearly 5.5 million M1 Garand rifles were produced from 1934 to 1957, and it served as the primary U.S. military longarm through World War II and the Korean War.

Overall Length: 43.5"
Barrel Length: 24"
Weight: 9 lbs., 8 ozs.
Chambering: .30-’06 Sprg.
Infantry Load: 80 cartridges (10 eight-round en bloc clips)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M14 wood-stocked rifle right-side view shown with web sling and detachable box magazine wood stock flash hider
M14
Throughout World War II, Springfield Armory trialed several experimental versions of the M1, including the T20, a Garand-designed prototype that allowed for full-automatic fire and used detachable box magazines in place of the en bloc clip. A new short-stroke gas system developed by Earl Harvey was incorporated into the design, and, by the early 1950s, the experimental T44 was selected over the Belgian FAL and ArmaLite AR-10 to become America’s next service rifle: the M14. Simultaneously, NATO member countries standardized on a single service cartridge to ease potential logistical issues in another European war, with most nations settling on the 7.62 NATO, a shortened derivative of the .30-’06 Sprg. cartridge with a similar ballistic profile.

Consequently, the 7.62 NATO-chambered M14 served as the primary American service rifle from the late 1950s until the early 1960s and continued to be used in specialist roles until the early 21st century. Conceptually, the M14 was envisioned by U.S. ordnance officials to be a “universal” option that could replace several different arms in the U.S. military arsenal. However, by 1963, production delays and concerns over the M14’s controllability in full-automatic fire and effectiveness as a general replacement arm caused then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to halt production. More than 1.3 million M14s were made between 1959 and 1964.

Overall Length: 44.3"
Barrel Length: 22"
Weight: 9 lbs., 3 ozs.
Chambering: 7.62 NATO
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges (five 20-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M16A1 rifle right-side view shown with web sling
M16A1
Mounting concerns over the M14 in the early 1960s spurred several defense officials to explore alternative platforms. A .223-cal. variant of the earlier ArmaLite AR-10 had been developed by Eugene Stoner and gained popularity following several successful tests. By 1963, experimental XM16E1 rifles were being produced for the U.S. Army. Standardized as the M16A1 in 1967, the new service arm officially replaced the M14 in U.S. service by 1969. Its 5.56x45 mm cartridge (standardized as 5.56 NATO in 1980), weighed about half as much as the 7.62 NATO cartridge, enabling troops to carry twice as much ammunition in a standard combat load. Recoil was more manageable, making the M16A1 more controllable in full-automatic fire. The use of aluminum forgings for the receiver set, along with polymer in the handguard, buttstock and grip, significantly lightened the rifle as compared to earlier M14s and M1 Garands. The M16A1 saw substantial use in Vietnam, and subsequent variants continued to be employed by U.S. forces into the 21st century. By the early 2000s, it had been estimated that more than 8 million M16s in all variants had been manufactured, making it the most widely produced U.S. military rifle of all time.

Overall Length: 38.8"
Barrel Length: 20"
Weight: 6 lbs., 6 ozs.
Chambering: 5.56 NATO
Infantry Load: 200 cartridges (10 20-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M4A1 right-side view rifle black gun simliar to ar-15
M4A1
Despite the lightweight and easily controllable nature of the M16A1, some U.S. troops found the platform to be unwieldy in select scenarios, due to its fixed buttstock and 20" barrel. Early experimental carbine variants, notably the CAR-15s, saw use by special forces units in Vietnam. By 1967, an experimental XM177E2 model was in service with MACV-SOG and was employed until the early 1980s. In 1982, development began on a new carbine variant of the M16, and by 1987, the XM4 had been tested by both the Army and Marine Corps. In 1993, after the First Gulf War, Colt began producing M4 carbines for the Army. By 2005, most soldiers carried M4s, and the design saw heavy use during conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2010, M4 carbines were being updated to the M4A1 standard, adding a heavier-profile barrel that would dissipate heat during rapid fire, a full-automatic trigger group to replace the three-round-burst fire mechanism in the original M4 and a bilateral selector switch. The M4A1 is currently the principal service rifle for both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, with more than 500,000 produced as of the early 2000s.

Overall Length: 33.8"
Barrel Length: 14.5"
Weight: 7 lbs., 12 ozs.
Chambering: 5.56 NATO
Infantry Load: 210 cartridges (seven 30-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of FN America


Recent Decades & The Future
Despite the dominance of the M16/M4 platform in U.S. service, several testing programs in recent decades explored alternatives designed to increase the hit probability and lethality of U.S. military small arms. The Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program, begun in 1986, explored several experimental models, but by 1990, none had met the Army’s criteria for a new firearm, and the project was shelved. Soon after, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) program of the late 1990s picked up where the ACR program had left off, and it eventually explored designs intended to replace several existing U.S. small arms, notably the M16/M4 platform. A spin-off of the OICW program resulted in the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, but despite extensive testing, the project was canceled in October 2005. In August 2010, the Army invited manufacturers to submit models to the Individual Carbine open competition as potential replacements for the M4/M4A1 carbine. Testing concluded in June 2013, with the Army stating that, of the eight entrants, “ ... none of the competitors met the minimum requirements.” In 2017, the U.S. Army began its Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, designed to explore potential upgrades to the M4A1 platform, with particular emphasis placed on the 5.56 NATO-chambered carbine’s ability to penetrate bulletproof vests fielded by near-peer adversaries. In April 2022, the U.S. Army awarded a 10-year contract to SIG Sauer to replace its existing M4A1 carbines with the company’s 6.8x51 mm NGSW-R design, officially designated as the XM7.

Wednesday, June 11, 2025

Insurrection/Riots/Deprivation of rights in America

 I am still working on my post, got buried in "Realspace" and couldn't devote a lot of time to it like I wanted to.  I ran across this post I did in 2021, the group I pulled the information from don't exist anymore*Bummer* I really liked the website, they were straight shooters, makes me wonder if the *Powers that Be* squashed the site.


 I Pulled this off the Security Studies Group website, I read the analysis and it is provocative.  I figured my readers would like it also.

 

There has been a considerable difference in how the January 6th riot at the Capitol and the 2020 Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots were treated by law enforcement, media and our political leaders. Security Studies Group (SSG) did an analysis to determine what actual crimes were committed in each case and whether any of them deserved to be properly called Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism or Conspiracy Against Rights.

If you only follow the major media outlets you might be surprised to learn that January 6th was not an insurrection, but the seizure of six blocks in Seattle last June by BLM and Antifa was. Or that the Black Lives Matter riots constituted Domestic Terrorism according to the definition in the Patriot Act, but the groups involved with the Capitol riot did not meet that standard.

In order for the country to properly evaluate and determine fixative measures, we have to first properly classify the organizations and events. This paper does that and can serve as a tool for determining what changes we should consider.

The over-arching recommendation we make is that using the Patriot Act to designate groups involved with political dissent as domestic terrorists is a dangerous path. It is too easy for the party in control of the security apparatus to use this tremendous power against political opponents. There are plenty of available criminal charges to cover any crimes committed. The Patriot Act should be amended to apply additional controls to ensure it cannot be abused in this way. Download and read the report here


Executive Summary

One of the biggest dangers our Founders tried to avoid was the ability of the state to criminalize dissent and political speech and activities. That is why the First Amendment is first. We must ensure that protected speech is not punished but also that actual violent activity does not enjoy unwarranted protection. The reactions to the recent politically-motivated violence has shown we are in danger of failing on both of those counts.

There have appeared to be two different standards applied to the violent acts of the political Right and Left in the 2020/2021 time frame. All Americans must be able to count on the guarantee of equal protection under the law and there is a growing impression that is not the case. This analysis will not take the political leanings or causes of the groups and actions evaluated into account, except to identify when those cause unwarranted disparate treatment.

The potential damage of the tremendous power of our security apparatus being used in the service of partisan political efforts is incalculable. If the citizenry no longer believe they will be fairly treated, the integrity of the Republic is at risk.

Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, and Conspiracy Against Rights

First, we must get the proper definitions in play.

Insurrection

The actual crime under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115, §2383 Rebellion or insurrection:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic terrorism’s definition is derived from the Patriot Act, and is as follows:

“[A]ctivities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

Our analysis is that the Patriot Act provisions are ripe for abuse because of the political advantage of being able to define political opponents as “terrorists.” There is no specific crime of domestic terrorism defined. The main purpose of the definition’s inclusion in the Act was to allow additional investigatory and surveillance techniques. Any indictments must be based on existing underlying crimes.

We propose that any terrorist designations under the Patriot Act include all of the following:

• A conspiracy of two or more
• Communicated intent to influence or intimidate civilians or government
• Violent felony acts directly connected to the first two requirements

This is not currently included in the language of the Patriot Act and consequently it is too readily available for use against individuals and groups who are disfavored by whatever party is currently in power. This is a dangerous concession of power and should be rectified by amending the Act.

Prosecuting Americans as domestic terrorists for crimes related to political activity heightens the danger that the United States government will lose the consent of the governed and come to be seen as an illegitimate entity. This is especially true if prosecutions on this score appear to be handled on a partisan basis.

Conspiracy Against Rights

This is a crime defined by 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This statute was designed to allow prosecutions of civil rights violations where intimidation or violence was used to stop full participation of some groups in Constitutionally-protected rights. It has been successfully used when violence stops use of public accommodations which could include roads and highways.

Conclusions

January 6th Riot — This stemmed from a political rally that was clearly protected speech. The violent actions that followed were not planned and consequently should be treated as simple crimes. Those who committed violent acts should be charged under relevant criminal statutes. The numerous charges of impeding an official proceeding are unwarranted and should be amended to trespassing.

This does not meet the criteria for: Insurrection, Domestic Terrorism, or Conspiracy Against Rights.

Black Lives Matter and Antifa (George Floyd Riots) — These began as clearly protected political speech that led to violence that spread quickly. Had this been a one-time event it would not have met the criteria for any of the three designations. However, when the protests continued and the violence was essentially incorporated into them this changed matters.

BLM/Antifa used the violence and threats of violence to extract concessions and changes of policy from numerous governments. They also intimidated civilians across the United States. Just because the majority of the protests were not violent does not change the fact that planners of events in major cities included those who conducted violent attacks.

In addition, BLM/Antifa specifically planned and executed events designed to block roadways and highways and threaten and intimidate persons exercising rights guaranteed them under law. They also injured numerous persons during these actions.

These factors meet the criteria for: Domestic Terrorism and Conspiracy Against Rights.

Black Lives Matter and Antifa (CHAZ/CHOP Occupation)— During the 2020 riots there was a violent seizure of a six-block area of Seattle where a government building was taken by force. The combined BLM/Antifa militants declared it free of U.S jurisdiction and they created a quasi-government for several weeks. They called this the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) or the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP).

They opposed by force the authority of the United States, state and local government and by force prevented, hindered, and delayed the execution of the laws of the United States.

These factors meet the criteria for: Insurrection and Conspiracy Against Rights.

Unequal Treatment— The charges including Conspiracy against participants in the Jan. 6th Riot are significantly more severe than those for the 2020 BLM/Antifa Riots. Even the FBI now admits it has “scant evidence” of any conspiracy to commit violence on January 6th at all. This appears to show a biased and unequal application of prosecutorial discretion based on the political persuasion of the groups and individuals involved.

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

Underestimating the Antifa Movement (Reprised)

 



I had posted this back in 2017,  This is background for a post that I am working on that I will try to post tomorrow.  Antifa to me is the "Red Guard" of the progressive left.  They are called out whenever any street violence is necessary to make a political point.  Antifa used a page out of Mao's little Red Book "We will move through the people like the fish through the sea" and they do especially when they have the L.A.Mayor(Bass) and the city council providing political cover for their activities.  There is more stupidity planned for this weekend in other blue cities in support of the political cause of the progressive left.



This is from my 2020 stash of meme's

ANTIFA has kinda exploded on the scene during the 2016 election cycle.  You saw them mostly attacking Trump supporters.   To an ANTIFA group, they consider us "Nazi's" and sub human.  Now where did they come from?   Well I believe that they are a continuation of the "Occupy Movement"

  Remember them in the 2012 and the 2014 election cycles, the "Occupy" group were center stage as "the Soldiers of Soros".  I have blogged about them frequently.  Now the Occupy groups have grown up into the "ANTIFA" movement.  They are still supported by the same cabal of leftist but now you have municipalities supporting them.  The ANTIFA movement counts as fellow allies, the BLM movement and the environmental groups.  They tend to band together to harass anybody that don't believe like they do.  And nobody can believe like they do because they are "True Believers" and everyone else will fail the ideological litmus test.  In their world, you can't have dissent, because if you do, than you are wrong and deserve to be punished for deviating from dogma.  The ANTIFA movement are the ideological soldiers of the modern Left.


It is easy to mock the ANTIFA movement as mostly feminist and beta males, and to a large extent that is accurate, but there is the hardcore center that well is "Hard". Those are the ones that do all the fighting and bicycling locking people. They have been demonizing their opponents and deriding them as "Nazi's" and when believe that your opponent is sub human, than you lose the "Taking human life" issue off the table because "we are evil and we deserve it." This is a dangerous mindset and the hardcore ANTIFA believe this and those are the ones you have to watch. You never underestimate people, especially since they are a fan of marxism and to use Mao's little red book as a reference "The Guerrilla can swim among the people and be one with them." What is going on is you have the early makings of a insurgency especially when a lot of city government supports them.


 Here are some definations from "Urban Dictionary" when I used the word "ANTIFA"

ANTIFA
Short for (militant) anti-fascists.

Middle-class champagne socialist/communist/anarchist white boys who don't like nationalists or fascists. They consider themselves to be rebelling against the establishment, whilst upholding all of its ultra-politically correct views.

Antifa only dislike racism when its carried out by whites, and do not have the bottle to stand up against anti-white racism; leading to many people on the right to refer to them as 'traitors'. I'd rather just call them morons.

Most are teenagers and university students who grow out of the fad when they start paying taxes.
Antifa is stupid. 

Anti-capitalistic, anti-personal freedom (unless you agree with them) anti-spiritual, anti-point. Harbors a social superiority with lack of civility or natural intelligence. These dim bulbs (at best) can be characterized by, greasy hair, basement dwellings and being totally devoid of any style or attraction. Usually spotted lurking at night in large groups of marauding retards of like mind (or lack thereof) near a large University or College, anywhere they can find safety in shear numbers (because their pussy's) but has been known to venture out in the daylight to antagonize, mace women, light garbage cans and cop cars on fire at DJT rallies for money.
We don't care if you're 80 years old, we are ANTIFA and were delivering a knuckle sandwich old man. 
Short for antifascist

An antifascist is somebody who is usually young, upper to middle class(wo)man who sits in their parents house standing against racism on their computers while sipping expensive wine. Most of them are anarchists or far-leftists such as communists or Marxists (or any socialists for that matter.)

When they get off their computers and go into the real world, they usually flood the streets in packs waving red and black flags symbolizing anarcho-communism, or maybe they just fly black flags or red flags. Since they are too dumb to realize that anarchism and socialism were ideas written from behind a desk and not able to be used in reality.

Usually antifa groups will not fight in a one on one match with a skinhead, they always attack in packs or cells. However, most are vegans and/or hippies so this is understandable since they're all weaklings.

Even if you do not agree with half of what I said, these people are politically correct hippies who adopt the most mainstream political views and then they make it look like they're a special fucking snowflake.







For progressives, Donald Trump is not just another Republican president. Seventy-six percent of Democrats, according to a Suffolk poll from last September, consider him a racist. Last March, according to a YouGov survey, 71 percent of Democrats agreed that his campaign contained “fascist undertones.” All of which raises a question that is likely to bedevil progressives for years to come: If you believe the president of the United States is leading a racist, fascist movement that threatens the rights, if not the lives, of vulnerable minorities, how far are you willing to go to stop it?
In Washington, D.C., the response to that question centers on how members of Congress can oppose Trump’s agenda, on how Democrats can retake the House of Representatives, and on how and when to push for impeachment. But in the country at large, some militant leftists are offering a very different answer. On Inauguration Day, a masked activist punched the white-supremacist leader Richard Spencer. In February, protesters violently disrupted UC Berkeley’s plans to host a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart.com editor. In March, protesters pushed and shoved the controversial conservative political scientist Charles Murray when he spoke at Middlebury College, in Vermont.






As far-flung as these incidents were, they have something crucial in common. Like the organizations that opposed the Multnomah County Republican Party’s participation in the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, these activists appear to be linked to a movement called “antifa,” which is short for antifascist or Anti-Fascist Action. The movement’s secrecy makes definitively cataloging its activities difficult, but this much is certain: Antifa’s power is growing. And how the rest of the activist left responds will help define its moral character in the Trump age.



 

Antifa traces its roots to the 1920s and ’30s, when militant leftists battled fascists in the streets of Germany, Italy, and Spain. When fascism withered after World War II, antifa did too. But in the ’70s and ’80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain’s punk scene. After the Berlin Wall fell, neo-Nazism also gained prominence in Germany. In response, a cadre of young leftists, including many anarchists and punk fans, revived the tradition of street-level antifascism.

By the 2000s, as the internet facilitated more transatlantic dialogue, some American activists had adopted the name antifa. But even on the militant left, the movement didn’t occupy the spotlight. To most left-wing activists during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years, deregulated global capitalism seemed like a greater threat than fascism.


Trump has changed that. For antifa, the result has been explosive growth. According to NYC Antifa, the group’s Twitter following nearly quadrupled in the first three weeks of January alone. (By summer, it exceeded 15,000.) Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ” An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.”






Those responses sometimes spill blood. Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny people whom they believe to be white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.




Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. When the masked antifa activist was filmed assaulting Spencer on Inauguration Day, another piece in The Nation described his punch as an act of “kinetic beauty.” Slate ran an approving article about a humorous piano ballad that glorified the assault. Twitter was inundated with viral versions of the video set to different songs, prompting the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau to tweet, “I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.”



The violence is not directed only at people like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”





Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities. But Trump supporters andalt-right groups see antifa’s attacks as an assault on their right to freely assemble, which they in turn seek to reassert. The result is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s. A few weeks after the attacks in San Jose, for instance, a conservative affiliated group announced that he would host a march in Sacramento to protest the attacks at Trump rallies. Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento called for a counter-demonstration; in the end, at least 10 people were stabbed.




 
A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos. After the university canceled the speech out of what it called “concern for public safety,” "ALT-Right" groups announced a “March on Berkeley” in support of “free speech.” At that rally, a 41-year-old man named Kyle Chapman, who was wearing a baseball helmet, ski goggles, shin guards, and a mask, smashed an antifa activist over the head with a wooden post. Suddenly, Trump supporters had a viral video of their own. An alt-right crowdfunding site soon raised more than $80,000 for Chapman’s legal defense. (In January, the same site had offered a substantial reward for the identity of the antifascist who had punched Spencer.) A politicized fight culture is emerging, fueled by cheerleaders on both sides. As James Anderson, an editor at It’s Going Down, told Vice, “This shit is fun.”






Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.
Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As they believe that the the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny "Nazi"s" and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.
      I am not sure what the future will bring, but I see all the fighting in the streets and I recall pictures of Germany in the 1920's and early 30's when the brown shirts squashed all dissent and burned books and other things to force people to conform to a certain ideology and if they didn't they went to one of these places..





I am afraid things will happen again like before.  When people forget the lessons of history, they are doomed to repeat it.  And the sad thing is that history isn't really taught anymore unless it is politically correct.