Kind of Blued
Member
"Because we use 5.56" is probably the most accurate answer.
Why Do We Use 5.56 instead of 6.8?
- Thread starter 4Freedom
- Start date
- Status
Omaha-BeenGlockin
Member
40 years worth of stockpiled ammo--guns--magazines--and spare parts is why.
Think supply chain--logistics and training.
Think supply chain--logistics and training.
Last edited:
duckman007
Member
Keep in mind that part of the original thinking was that a smaller cartridge would allow a higher ratio of ammunition per pound to be carried. Another aspect to the reasoning behind the adoption of the 5.56 is that the military was more interested in wounding the enemy than killing the enemy. If you kill the enemy, that's it. If you wound him, additional resources are used to remove and treat the wounded soldier. While that may be sound reasoning for the battlefield, and seems to have worked well for the military, there really isn't a single round that works perfect in every situation. If you want a one-shot one-kill round, it's usually bigger and heavier. It also may have too much penetration for law enforcement in urban environments. If you want to wound instead of kill, the round is usually smaller and doesn't have the knock-down power or range needed in certain applications.
The wounding explanation is a myth. The round is designed to kill. It may have a higher chance of wounding than a 7.62x51mm NATO round, but it's designed to kill. The M193 round may have more damaging effects than a 7.62mm hard ball round within ~150 yards due to fragmentation.
duckman007
Member
Matrix187
No offense, but I respectfully disagree with you regarding the 5.56 being designed to kill and not wound. Yes, the round is more than capable of killing, but what I said was that the military was more interested at the time in wounding, rather than killing the enemy.
I'm curious as to how you determined that this philosophy was a myth and not actually true. I based my statement base on what I have been told by military personnel who were actually trained in this manner. I'm not saying that they were trained to wound and not to kill, I'm saying that they were trained to believe that it was preferable that the enemy be wounded rather than killed because of the additional resources required to care for the wounded. I know and trust these people and when they say that they were trained first hand in this manner, I believe them. I've also read some of Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman writings. Here is a quote from him:
"Almost all of this development of gun powder weapons occurred in the 19th century. By the early 20th century this developmental process had reached its culmination. One common myth in this area involves the increasing "deadliness" of modern small arms, which is largely without foundation. For example, the high-velocity, small-caliber (5.56 mm/.223-caliber) ammunition used in most assault rifles today (e.g., the M-16 and the AK-74) were designed to wound rather than kill. The theory is that wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing him because a wounded soldier eliminates three people: the wounded man and two others to evacuate him. These weapons do inflict great (wounding) trauma, but they are illegal for hunting deer in much of the United States due to their ineffectiveness at quickly and effectively killing game."
Again, no offense, but I tend to believe those who I know and trust, as well as the writings of a well respected expert, over a blanket statement that the wounding explanation is a myth. I would be interested in hearing back from you as to your basis for your claims.
No offense, but I respectfully disagree with you regarding the 5.56 being designed to kill and not wound. Yes, the round is more than capable of killing, but what I said was that the military was more interested at the time in wounding, rather than killing the enemy.
I'm curious as to how you determined that this philosophy was a myth and not actually true. I based my statement base on what I have been told by military personnel who were actually trained in this manner. I'm not saying that they were trained to wound and not to kill, I'm saying that they were trained to believe that it was preferable that the enemy be wounded rather than killed because of the additional resources required to care for the wounded. I know and trust these people and when they say that they were trained first hand in this manner, I believe them. I've also read some of Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman writings. Here is a quote from him:
"Almost all of this development of gun powder weapons occurred in the 19th century. By the early 20th century this developmental process had reached its culmination. One common myth in this area involves the increasing "deadliness" of modern small arms, which is largely without foundation. For example, the high-velocity, small-caliber (5.56 mm/.223-caliber) ammunition used in most assault rifles today (e.g., the M-16 and the AK-74) were designed to wound rather than kill. The theory is that wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing him because a wounded soldier eliminates three people: the wounded man and two others to evacuate him. These weapons do inflict great (wounding) trauma, but they are illegal for hunting deer in much of the United States due to their ineffectiveness at quickly and effectively killing game."
Again, no offense, but I tend to believe those who I know and trust, as well as the writings of a well respected expert, over a blanket statement that the wounding explanation is a myth. I would be interested in hearing back from you as to your basis for your claims.
kcmarine
Member
Because these men have the proper motivation.
Jaybird78
Member
I think the real question is, " Why doesn't the military use the Glock?" After all, the police use the Glock and it is perfection. 
**************MONEY AND POLITICS*************
The above is your answer.
**************MONEY AND POLITICS*************
The above is your answer.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
future weapons is a bad place to learn facts about the best gun/caliber.
This myth will never die... will it?
This myth was created by people who disliked the 5.56 round and perpetuated by people who know no better.
The military is in the business of KILLING PEOPLE not wounding them. It has always been this way.
This myth will never die... will it?
This myth was created by people who disliked the 5.56 round and perpetuated by people who know no better.
The military is in the business of KILLING PEOPLE not wounding them. It has always been this way.
duckman007
Member
The idea that it's better to wound the enemy rather than kill the enemy is not a 5.56 only debate. My father was in WWII and he often spoke how he was educated as to the additional burden a wounded soldier placed on the enemy. He was never trained, at least to my knowledge, to attempt to wound a soldier as opposed to killing the soldier. He carried a 03-A3, which as you know was not designed to wound anything, it was a one-shot, one-kill weapon. My point was not intended to debate the purpose or goal of our armed forces when it comes to wounded vs. killing. I'm simply saying those that I have talked to, and publications that I have read, have stated that the 5.56 round was adopted by the military, partly because of the wounded soldier belief. Things like lighter recoil, more ammo with the same weight, were also cited as to the 5.56 round being adopted. When I say that I've talked to people, I mean people that were in the military when the round was adopted. When I say publications that I have read, I mean articles and and military memos referring to the benefits of wounding a soldier, not the opinions floated in forums.
Disagree with me if you will, everyone enjoys a good clean debate! I'm only sharing the information that I have encountered and believe to be valid, and have provided a reputable source to support my claim. As I asked in my previous post, if you don't agree with me, please provide a reason, not just a blanket statement. We can all benefit from the sharing of knowledge. However, I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but without something to support my claim, how credible is it?
One last thing, the military told Stoner no to the AR-10 and went with the M14. Why then go and adopt a scaled down version of the AR-10 using the 5.56 instead of keeping the 7.62 round used by the original design of the AR-10? I wasn't involved in the decision making process, but it does look like they were looking for a smaller, less lethal round.
Disagree with me if you will, everyone enjoys a good clean debate! I'm only sharing the information that I have encountered and believe to be valid, and have provided a reputable source to support my claim. As I asked in my previous post, if you don't agree with me, please provide a reason, not just a blanket statement. We can all benefit from the sharing of knowledge. However, I can say that the moon is made of green cheese, but without something to support my claim, how credible is it?
One last thing, the military told Stoner no to the AR-10 and went with the M14. Why then go and adopt a scaled down version of the AR-10 using the 5.56 instead of keeping the 7.62 round used by the original design of the AR-10? I wasn't involved in the decision making process, but it does look like they were looking for a smaller, less lethal round.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Stop spreading myths!!
You have provided NO credible source for your myth.
You have provided NO credible source for your myth.
I think they realized they made a big mistake when they forced the 7.62x51mm down NATO's throat, but going back to what the rest of the alliance wanted from the start ,(something close to that 280 british), meant they had to admit their mistake....That was probably too much for them.
So they chose something completely different and even worse then first time around.
duckman007
Member
I disagree. The one source I quoted is listed below:
LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.) Director, Warrior Science Group, www.killology.com
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.
Again, your belief that it's a myth alone is not enough for me to dismiss those that I personally know to be credible, along with others like Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Your post does nothing to substantiate your beliefs.
If I'm spreading a myth, then once again I ask, prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, I ask that you educate me, not merely disagree with me. That benefits no one and does nothing to enlighten me or the others who may be looking for something more than an opinion.
LT. COL. DAVE GROSSMAN, U.S. Army (Ret.) Director, Warrior Science Group, www.killology.com
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an internationally recognized scholar, author, soldier, and speaker who is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the roots of violence and violent crime.
Again, your belief that it's a myth alone is not enough for me to dismiss those that I personally know to be credible, along with others like Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Your post does nothing to substantiate your beliefs.
If I'm spreading a myth, then once again I ask, prove me wrong. If I'm wrong, I ask that you educate me, not merely disagree with me. That benefits no one and does nothing to enlighten me or the others who may be looking for something more than an opinion.
mgregg85
Member
The 5.56mm works, how much are we really going to gain by spending the billions to change over to the 6.8? Seems like a big waste of money in these economic conditions, even if we were doing better it would be a waste.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
LTC Grossman is great at psychology, not so much at hardware. That's sort of like getting marriage advice from Paris Hilton.
If your really interested, Dr. Ezell wrote pretty much "THE" definative history of the selection process that gave us the M16 series. It's "The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond". At no time was wounding v. killing a factor in selection.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780811707091
And be careful about what folks in the military say about anything. Lots of bad information, sea stories and flat out lies exist and tend to stay around. Lots of examples, like the Geneva Convention having to do with ammo selection (IE, no expanding bullets) or the "no shooting at troops with the .50 cal.
HTH!
That's sort of like getting marriage advice from Paris Hilton. If your really interested, Dr. Ezell wrote pretty much "THE" definative history of the selection process that gave us the M16 series. It's "The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II Through Vietnam and Beyond". At no time was wounding v. killing a factor in selection.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/isbn/9780811707091
And be careful about what folks in the military say about anything. Lots of bad information, sea stories and flat out lies exist and tend to stay around. Lots of examples, like the Geneva Convention having to do with ammo selection (IE, no expanding bullets) or the "no shooting at troops with the .50 cal.
HTH!
That's exactlhy what they said about the Sherman tank after the African campaign, the same thing was said about the .50 cal as fighter aircraft weapon after ww2, despite the clearly visible shortcomings.
We all know how well those things worked the next time they had to do reall hard work. Overlord for the Sherman and the Korean war for the fifty cal armed fighters.:banghead:
duckman007
Member
Al Thompson
Thanks for the information. Just to be clear, I wasn't involved in the decision, as I'm sure is the case with the others on this forum. I claim no supreme insight as to the logic involved. I have only the verbal and written word to go by. Whether the wounded soldier belief was a primary factor, or even a factor at all, in the selection of the 5.56 may only be known to those involved. The rest of us may never know the complete and full truth.
I have heard of the book, but I've never read it. I do, however, appreciate you providing another source in which to review and attempt to form a more enlightened opinion. In the end, all we can do is absorb content, judge it based on it's credibility, and formulate an educated opinion from there.
Again, thanks for the input.
Thanks for the information. Just to be clear, I wasn't involved in the decision, as I'm sure is the case with the others on this forum. I claim no supreme insight as to the logic involved. I have only the verbal and written word to go by. Whether the wounded soldier belief was a primary factor, or even a factor at all, in the selection of the 5.56 may only be known to those involved. The rest of us may never know the complete and full truth.
I have heard of the book, but I've never read it. I do, however, appreciate you providing another source in which to review and attempt to form a more enlightened opinion. In the end, all we can do is absorb content, judge it based on it's credibility, and formulate an educated opinion from there.
Again, thanks for the input.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, no problem. I've been on the board since the begining and folks get burned out. When I was at Ft Benning prior to going to Iraq, they trotted out that "Geneva Convention" thing in a Power Point briefing. Bad information apparently never dies.
I've been on the board since the begining and folks get burned out. When I was at Ft Benning prior to going to Iraq, they trotted out that "Geneva Convention" thing in a Power Point briefing. Bad information apparently never dies. Hi Duckman007, It is a myth that the enemy will tend to a wounded soldier pulling several. I was a grunt in nam (4th Inf Div)68-69. We fought the NVA.If they had a man wounded,they kept on fighting not tending to him.The M193 was very lethal. To pull any man,freind or enemy,out of combat is taking a rifle out of the fight. That cannot be done. Byron
LTC(RET) Dave Grossman is (by his own admission when I heard him speak):
1. Someone who became pro-firearms late in adult life (after 9/11).
2. Someone with zero combat experience or any expert firearms background
He has no more expertise on military firearms (or 5.56mm) than anyone else who underwent entry-level and mid-career Army training. Great guy, but not my choice for an authoritative source on terminal ballistics. Grossman was merely repeating what HE heard (i.e., the myth).
I've been hearing the myth of 5.56mm being adopted to wound since shortly after the end of the Viet Nam War. Complete and utter hogwash. I've never seen it discussed, taught, or briefed in a professional military doctrinal environment or supporting publication.
Uninformed Drill Sergeants, dangerously ignorant non-combat arms instructors, and general BS artists around the water cooler have solemnly promulgated this myth almost as often as these:
that shotguns w/ 00 Buck don't need to be aimed (only pointed)
that .45 ACP will knock a man off his feet (and through the air)
that 5.56mm will "explode you just like that ammo can full of water"
that .50 BMG can't "legally" be used to shoot humans (only equipment)
that AKs are innaccurate
that AKs are supernaturally reliable
that carrying the M9 with the safety off is dangerous
that 9mm won't stop anyone
that the "Z" on the M16A2 elevation drum means "Zero Setting"
...ad nauseum.
Most folks in the military (even assigned weapons instuctors) are not really "gunnies". They receive or teach a canned (doctrinal) program of instruction livened up by war stories, common myths, and occasional nuggets of firearms truth. For every military instructor or trainer who really knows firearms, there are 9 who don't. Each year, many tens of thousands of trainees hear the oral stories and carry the misinformation throughout the organizational culture. Each year, tens of thousands leave the military and swap the same "facts" over a beer with friends (or spread it over the internet).
Centerfire military rifle calibers are designed to kill. The fact that they can also maim (requiring battlefield evacuation) is incidental. Surviving a rifle wound is a function of dumb luck combined with a good medical evacuation / trauma treatment mechanism. I know several co-workers who have survived hits from 7.62 x 39...and a lot of foreign nationals who haven't survived hits from 5.56.
It is common knowledge that wounded combatants place an enormous logistical strain on all sides. Yes, moving wounded at the front lines attrits any unit's available combat power. But, that was true when folks were carrying spears. That logistical planning factor is applicable to any organization dealing with any personnel wounded by any mechanism. However, 5.56 was not adopted to increase numbers of wounded enemy.
5.56 is retained because Perfect is the Enemy of Good Enough. It kills, is more than accurate enough, allows large masses of moderately trained troops to get more hits (easier recoil), allows troops to lay down more suppression with less resupply, and lightens the soldier's load (providing sustained ability to maneuver). That said, we've already invested over half a century's worth of our meager small arms budgets towards refining the existing caliber, weapons, and accessories.
We don't use 6.8 because no organization is willing to pony up the significant cash necessary to do so.
1. Someone who became pro-firearms late in adult life (after 9/11).
2. Someone with zero combat experience or any expert firearms background
He has no more expertise on military firearms (or 5.56mm) than anyone else who underwent entry-level and mid-career Army training. Great guy, but not my choice for an authoritative source on terminal ballistics. Grossman was merely repeating what HE heard (i.e., the myth).
I've been hearing the myth of 5.56mm being adopted to wound since shortly after the end of the Viet Nam War. Complete and utter hogwash. I've never seen it discussed, taught, or briefed in a professional military doctrinal environment or supporting publication.
Uninformed Drill Sergeants, dangerously ignorant non-combat arms instructors, and general BS artists around the water cooler have solemnly promulgated this myth almost as often as these:
that shotguns w/ 00 Buck don't need to be aimed (only pointed)
that .45 ACP will knock a man off his feet (and through the air)
that 5.56mm will "explode you just like that ammo can full of water"
that .50 BMG can't "legally" be used to shoot humans (only equipment)
that AKs are innaccurate
that AKs are supernaturally reliable
that carrying the M9 with the safety off is dangerous
that 9mm won't stop anyone
that the "Z" on the M16A2 elevation drum means "Zero Setting"
...ad nauseum.
Most folks in the military (even assigned weapons instuctors) are not really "gunnies". They receive or teach a canned (doctrinal) program of instruction livened up by war stories, common myths, and occasional nuggets of firearms truth. For every military instructor or trainer who really knows firearms, there are 9 who don't. Each year, many tens of thousands of trainees hear the oral stories and carry the misinformation throughout the organizational culture. Each year, tens of thousands leave the military and swap the same "facts" over a beer with friends (or spread it over the internet).
Centerfire military rifle calibers are designed to kill. The fact that they can also maim (requiring battlefield evacuation) is incidental. Surviving a rifle wound is a function of dumb luck combined with a good medical evacuation / trauma treatment mechanism. I know several co-workers who have survived hits from 7.62 x 39...and a lot of foreign nationals who haven't survived hits from 5.56.
It is common knowledge that wounded combatants place an enormous logistical strain on all sides. Yes, moving wounded at the front lines attrits any unit's available combat power. But, that was true when folks were carrying spears. That logistical planning factor is applicable to any organization dealing with any personnel wounded by any mechanism. However, 5.56 was not adopted to increase numbers of wounded enemy.
5.56 is retained because Perfect is the Enemy of Good Enough. It kills, is more than accurate enough, allows large masses of moderately trained troops to get more hits (easier recoil), allows troops to lay down more suppression with less resupply, and lightens the soldier's load (providing sustained ability to maneuver). That said, we've already invested over half a century's worth of our meager small arms budgets towards refining the existing caliber, weapons, and accessories.
We don't use 6.8 because no organization is willing to pony up the significant cash necessary to do so.
Duckman007........Think about it for a minute and then read the multitude of threads regarding what round is best for?????....
It would be impossible to develop a round that would consistently wound at all ranges and not kill at any range...Using current technology anyways...
There are probably many factors to determine which round the military adopts...The cynic in me says that it's the one that comes with the most well heeled lobbyist attached....
It would be impossible to develop a round that would consistently wound at all ranges and not kill at any range...Using current technology anyways...
There are probably many factors to determine which round the military adopts...The cynic in me says that it's the one that comes with the most well heeled lobbyist attached....
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Yeah, because the troops we are fighting today are so much harder to kill. They are faster, have more armor, and we have to shoot at them from distances much further out than ever before.
Think about your little analogy for a minute. It doesn't make much sense.
The 5.56 is just as lethal today as it was last year or in Vietnam. In the examples you used, there are advances in technology and armarment that would necessitate an upgrade in order to compete. In the case of the 5.56 round, what has changed today that makes it obsolete versus 40 years ago?
At ranges of 300 yards or less, the 5.56 is just fine. That is what it was designed for, and it does the job very well at that range. Sure, there are exceptions, but the majority of firefights are well within the designed parameters of the 5.56 round.
I'd like to see some sources as to why the 5.56 is the reason for that. it's been known for years that the rifleman is not the king of the battlefield anymore. Mechanized and aerial forces are king now. That's just a changing of times more than it is backing up an inferior round.
Besides, I'd like to hear from anyone who has been shot with a 5.56 and have them tell us what happened. Did they keep fighting after getting shot? Or did they die and/or become incapacitated as they were in agonizing pain and fear as they saw blood pouring out of them? Either of the latter sounds like it reinforces the 5.56's effectiveness to me.
duckman007
Member
Wheeler44
You are 100% correct in that we currently do not have the technology capable of selective kill/wound. A .22 may wound 90% of the time, but does little to incapacitate an enemy (I don't know the statistics, I just tossed 90% out there as an example). I wasn't suggesting that the 5.56 was that round, merely that, based upon my readings and information relayed to me from more experience folks than myself, that part of the decision making process involved in the selection of the 5.56 involved the wounded soldier theory. Whether that's a myth or not will not be determined or disproved by me, or anyone else that wasn't the final decision maker. The truth is that, like you said, it probably had more to do with money than the welfare of our troops. While I love my AR, I also love my AK, my 1917, my 03-A3, and my Model 11 shotgun. All combat weapons (well my AR and my model 11 were never in combat, but you get the point) and all capable of doing severe bodily harm. However, the AK and especially the AR in no way compare to the sheer power of the 30-06 round used by the 1917 and the 03-A3. So if killing is the primary goal, why pick a significantly smaller round? (Just a rhetorical question, no need to answer.)
I do know for a fact that the wounded soldier theory was being propagated in WWII, as I stated in my earlier post. My father was taught that a wounded soldier was more of a burden than a dead soldier. Again, they never told him to wound anyone, I think is was more of belief that if you wound a soldier to the point where he would need immediate medical attention, don't waste another round to finish him off, let him suffer and be a burden to his fellow troops. As you know, WWII was years before Vietnam, the AR-10 or the 5.56. Whether this was faulty training or antiquated techniques, not for me to say.
Whether the wounded soldier theory is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion and to the adoption of the 5.56. Either it's a true, or it's not. Probably not as Byron's experience would indicate. Whether it was used as a factor in the adoption of the 5.56 is true, or it's a myth. Either is was or it wasn't, really no middle ground. If it's a myth, let's be done with it. If it's not a myth, then the point is that some decision maker believed the wounded soldier theory and utilized this belief in his decision. Whether he was right or wrong, he made the decision and folks have disagreed on it every since.
I appreciate each of your input. Did it change anything that I've read or heard, no. It did give me another viewpoint and, thanks to Al Thompson, additional reading material. There are so many so called facts that are myths and myths that are actually true that it's hard to take anything for face value that you don't have personal knowledge about.
You are 100% correct in that we currently do not have the technology capable of selective kill/wound. A .22 may wound 90% of the time, but does little to incapacitate an enemy (I don't know the statistics, I just tossed 90% out there as an example). I wasn't suggesting that the 5.56 was that round, merely that, based upon my readings and information relayed to me from more experience folks than myself, that part of the decision making process involved in the selection of the 5.56 involved the wounded soldier theory. Whether that's a myth or not will not be determined or disproved by me, or anyone else that wasn't the final decision maker. The truth is that, like you said, it probably had more to do with money than the welfare of our troops. While I love my AR, I also love my AK, my 1917, my 03-A3, and my Model 11 shotgun. All combat weapons (well my AR and my model 11 were never in combat, but you get the point) and all capable of doing severe bodily harm. However, the AK and especially the AR in no way compare to the sheer power of the 30-06 round used by the 1917 and the 03-A3. So if killing is the primary goal, why pick a significantly smaller round? (Just a rhetorical question, no need to answer.)
I do know for a fact that the wounded soldier theory was being propagated in WWII, as I stated in my earlier post. My father was taught that a wounded soldier was more of a burden than a dead soldier. Again, they never told him to wound anyone, I think is was more of belief that if you wound a soldier to the point where he would need immediate medical attention, don't waste another round to finish him off, let him suffer and be a burden to his fellow troops. As you know, WWII was years before Vietnam, the AR-10 or the 5.56. Whether this was faulty training or antiquated techniques, not for me to say.
Whether the wounded soldier theory is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion and to the adoption of the 5.56. Either it's a true, or it's not. Probably not as Byron's experience would indicate. Whether it was used as a factor in the adoption of the 5.56 is true, or it's a myth. Either is was or it wasn't, really no middle ground. If it's a myth, let's be done with it. If it's not a myth, then the point is that some decision maker believed the wounded soldier theory and utilized this belief in his decision. Whether he was right or wrong, he made the decision and folks have disagreed on it every since.
I appreciate each of your input. Did it change anything that I've read or heard, no. It did give me another viewpoint and, thanks to Al Thompson, additional reading material. There are so many so called facts that are myths and myths that are actually true that it's hard to take anything for face value that you don't have personal knowledge about.
Duckman,one thing I quickly learned is a wounded enemy is dangerous. Take him out.
I note you are from GA. That is my native state(NW GA) and the state I was drafted from.Left up around Blue Ridge many years. What part of GA are you from? Byron
I note you are from GA. That is my native state(NW GA) and the state I was drafted from.Left up around Blue Ridge many years. What part of GA are you from? Byron
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
