senojekips
Active member
Well, we still train with bayonets, but we feel that if you ever have to use one, you're in deep dookie.
The dookie would be a hell of a lot deeper if you didn't have it, or it wasn't fixed on your rifle.
Well, we still train with bayonets, but we feel that if you ever have to use one, you're in deep dookie.
A triangular wound is much more potent and takes much longer to heal than a line shaped stab. It is harder for scar tissue to form around a triangular wound and because the triangular bayonets have more surface area entering the body they to more damage internally. Triangular bayonets are the only bayonets worth using in such a purpose.
OK so currently the American bayonet is the M it's a 7 inch long glorified knife. Why don't they make the bayonets more triangular? Triangular wounds take the longest to heal since they aren't easy to close. That is the entire point if the bayonet I thought. Do they still teach soldiers how to use their bayonet effectively in basic training? Oh and by the way did anyone notice that the American Soldier was given Time's Person of the Year award? I wish I could get a copy of it.
It's interesting that the main supporters of unnecassary bayonet wounding seem to have no military background.... at least that I know of.
Nail, head, on target. Too much Nintendo, not enough rugby.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to issue a sidearm as a backup to soldiers than to rely on a bayonet or a knife.
I happen to like the comic book "The Punisher". Although he is a fictional character he often repeats his belief that "only an idiot or a madman brings a knife into a gunfight".
I'm not a combat expert, but it seems to make sense.
in my experience/opinion, nothing fires a digger up like fix bayonets ive seen fellow soldiers go so hard in bayonet training that they have broken wrists, and yes even a rifle (receiver broke away from the butt group) let me assure you fellas, that if it came toe to toe, i WOULD take you down with a bayonet quicker that you could put a hand on your sidearm. maybe firepower is perceived as a 'safer' way of soldiering, but i know what i trust my life with
in my experience/opinion, nothing fires a digger up like fix bayonets ive seen fellow soldiers go so hard in bayonet training that they have broken wrists, and yes even a rifle (receiver broke away from the butt group) let me assure you fellas, that if it came toe to toe, i WOULD take you down with a bayonet quicker that you could put a hand on your sidearm. maybe firepower is perceived as a 'safer' way of soldiering, but i know what i trust my life with
The only trouble with this is that should you need it in an emergency, your sidearm is in it's holster, whereas an infantryman will have his bayonet affixed to the end of his rifle.
Bayonets are perhaps not as "cool" looking as having a pistol on your belt, but they are a lot more practical.
If such a thing was possible, I'd like to see how many have been killed in battle with both weapons. I reckon the bayonet would be so far ahead as to be out of sight.
Let's face it, both weapons are only really any use in a "hand to hand" situation, and I know that I'd feel a lot happier with a bayonet on the end of my rifle than with a pistol in a holster. Unless perhaps I thought I was Wyatt Earp.
He who angers you, controls you.