The Never Ending Small Arms Caliber Debate

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. If, instead of the 30 Remington, they'd based the 6.8 on the 5.56 case, necked up to 6.8mm and shortened to 43mm, you'd have ballistics similar to the 7mm T/CU - a very effective metallic silhouette cartridge. The only change required for the upgrade would be new barrels, magazine capacity would be unchanged and the increased packload for the same number of rounds would be measured in ounces.

Papa

7.62mm is the way to go. 5.56mm will go right thru a grown man, not that a 7.62 won't it's just the 7.62 will knock a man on his ass - he won't get up.

Lets take this up with something even more important- sidearms. Close-quarters firing, if you're engaging THESE weapons. Who needs 24 rounds just to get someone's attention, when if you hit them with ONE, they stay out?

Give the law of land warfare, why we are using a 9mm instead of a .40 or even a .45 is beyond me. The fat, clunky, useless 92FS we get now is better used as a doorstop.

In Iraq, I used mine with 20-rd mags. Yeah, they stuck out the bottom (but not much) and still fit in the holsters, but the fact it was even NECESSARY because the 9mm just lacked punch. If we're gonna use such a micro-round, we need a smaller weapon. Give me an XD-M .40, or even a Sig, and we're good.

Hell, if you REALLY want to save, give me a .22 LR, LOTS of lil ol ammo, and I can hit out farther. That'll keep their heads down.

Wolf

I don't know anything except what I've been told by Marines. An insurgent turned up in a hospital (if you can call it that) in Husaybah Iraq who had been hit by at least 30 223 rounds during a fight with Marines. He bled to death, but still managed to get himself to the hospital. Also, then 1st Sgt Kasal put 6 to 8 223 rounds into an insurgents chest at point blank, The guy finally fell down but was not dead.

Sounds to me like our military needs a bigger round.

A new round means a new rifle. You could in theory replace the uppers of the M-16/M-4, but what about the M-249? The Marines are just now finishing up their automatic rifle compition. The Army is up dating the SAW (about time too!). A new round would lose the ease of logistics that 5.56 gave with he M-249/M-16 combo.

Do you want to go back to the days of the 7.62 M-60 and M-16? As a saw gunner, I could count of a battle throwing me a mag when I ran out. The machine guns would have to be redesigned.

A new rifle or upper receiver means more training, a logistic nightmare in time of war and increased upfront costs. A bitter pill to swallow these days.

I know the thing weighs a bunch,but for House to house and in city the Thmpson Sub
looks like a real Killer.A friend of mine's
g
Grandfather carried on in the Islands in
WWII

Uncle J hit on the most important issue...the long arm of logistics. Non-standard rounds, while sexy and cool, require retrofitting rifles. That is costly. Then there are the enormous amounts of ammo that must be produced before it can even be plugged into the first mag. There must be a carryover of "x-million" rounds available for front loading the logistics trail before the first basic load is distributed; that way production does not have to surge to meet huge or sudden changes in demand. Then there is the distribution piece to ensure the right round make it into the right rifles...anyone remember why the .45 Schofield round died on the vine in 1874?

The 5.56mm works fine for most scenarios but is not the "magic bullet" that fits all scenarios. However, neither will any of the boutique rounds vying for attention to meet the "does it all" grade. I was happy with the 5.56...never had a complaint.

I always believed that upgrading the M193 55-grain round to something slightly heavier and, yes, slower, would provide the short and mid range performance that our guys need. For real reach, you still need the 7.62mm and your sniper or DM shooter.

I recall training during my time as a local cop involving the astonishing capabilities of hostiles on Angel Dust/PCP, Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and any number of opiates where they just don't care about pain. Without that pain response and with their adrenaline receptors short circuited, even a 7.62x51 may not put them down like you'd want unless you hit the CNS. It's amazing what the human machine can tolerate mechanically when it isn't feeling pain. I recall a video where the guy's response to a deer slug was to flinch, and then limp a little from then on. He was about 260# and on PCP.
Personally, I think 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel would be better than 5.56x45mm. Then do what we can to make anything 5.56 into the new round that is chosen. Failing that going to something like 68 grain 5.56 might be better, my AR certainly likes it. However, we'll still be hearing stories about hostiles that are not going down and staying down. That's the nature of the drugs they are on.

Regardless of what you shoot the bad guy with, you must hit him in an area that will shut him down. Hitting a man 23 times is a waste of ammo, if not one round hits him in the heart or brain to stop him NOW. a dozen hits in the legs will leave a man able to return fire until he bleeds out....IF he does.

A hit in the hand from a howitzer will not kill you either

The 5.56 is perfectly fine for killing people. We are soft and pink, and die easily when ventilated. We do not have a armor plate of pig gristle, or a elk hide thick enough to make clothing from, or a heart that will pump when blown to pieces, or lungs that will let us run at full speed for a few hundred yards. In the evolution of all creatures....we're wimps.

This is why God gave us better brains, rather than bigger antlers and long teeth.

The trouble with the 5.56 was the so-called upgrade to a heavier, longer, and faster spun bullet. The original 55gr boattail, spun at 1-14", was known and proven to create terrible wounds because of its marginal stability. The moment the bullet hit flesh, it immediately turned over and broke apart. Early reports had it blowing off VC arms and legs, and tearing away large chunks of torso. Arctic testing showed a need for better stability in sub-zero (slower muzzle speed due to degraded powder burn speed), so the barrel twist was increased to 1-12" by the time the US Army adopted the rifle fully. 1-12" still managed to create a severe wound in Victor Charles, but the tales of blown off body parts waned.

But someone, somewhere, in the name of international/NATO needs, decided to adopt the SS109 from Belgium that was being used in their new Minimi machine gun, as the new cartridge for the new M16A2 rifle....ammo compatibility among friendly NATO nations you know.

Well, the heavier, longer bullet required a faster twist to stabilize. This is good in a machine gun, poor for performance in a rifle. MG's need to hit the beaten zone, accuracy and terminal ballistics is not paramount. Rifles need to hit with the first and possibly only round, making ballistic and terminal performance the #1 priority.

The 62gr M855 round, while accurate enough, does poorly at the other end of its flight. Though designed to tumble and break apart, this only happens a very close range when speed is still high. While the faster M193 will break apart and tumble at all but extreme distance (and extreme distance is what mortars are for).

Some SF groups adopted the 77gr Sierra MatchKing for longer range shooting, but found the bullet does not perform well in bodies at the long ranges they were shooting at, and it really failed all around when fired from the M4 carbine, due to the lack of muzzle speed. Ditto with the 6.8 Rem.

OK, so I'm long winded. I've been at this small arms crap for over 20 years in/for the Army (full time federal weapons tech, California NG. 28 months in Iraq with the 1st ID and 82nd). I have advocated a return to the slower twist rate, and 55gr M193 since 1990.

The rumors of lack of penetration of heavy clothing always seems fine in a lab environ, but never seems to work that way in real battles. Mr. Hajji always seemed to fall down when hit properly, and quickly expire. Hajji wears either western clothing, or a single layer "man dress" year-round. The Muj in the ATO, also seem to easily suck up 5.56 ammo regardless of the weather.

Anyway, that's my take. 55gr, 3200fps, and terminal ballistics as originally designed by Mr Stoner and Mr Hutton. Heavier rounds result in heavier recoil. Heavier recoil results in slower shooting. Slower shooting results in less firepower heading downrange.

Dave

The elephant in the room is that we're using full metal jacket rounds for anti-personnel. The problems with 5.56 go away if you issue hollow point. So I think a major question, if not *the* question, is how do we change the Geneva conventions?

In many of these operations, we're stuck doing MOUT, which is often glorified police work, we should use hollow-point for the same reason police do. A fragmenting hollow-point round delivers more kinetic energy to the target, more organ trauma, and less possibility of passing through and inflicting collateral damage. I'm not sure how much the last point applies to hollow-point rifle rounds, but it's certainly the case for pistols.

Now, I understand the current political reality regarding the Geneva conventions. But the long term trend is more terrorist organizations operating outside Geneva and thus weakening it. Every time they kill innocent civilians they make the case for harsh response. The time frame in which amending GC could become a political reality is comparable to the time frame in which a new caliber becomes a technical reality.

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not saying drop FMJ in favor of hollow-point. Rather, I'm suggesting we'd issue both to be used as tactical necessity dictates.

The 6.8mm Remington SPC also appears to strike the right balance, and I think it was developed either by or at the behest of one of the SF groups for that purpose.

As I understand, the 6.8mm Remington round was developed by two (or more) NCOs of the 5th (I think) Special Forces Group, working on their own. From the description of the process they went through, I ass-u-me that they tried 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 brass, necked up-or-down as appropriate, before trying other calibers, and eventually trying the .30 Remington. (Which, again as I understand, is "essentially" a .30-30-equivalent for semi-autos.)

Uncle Sugar went with a 9mm for the logistical advantage that everyone else in NATO was using 9mm. Note that, shortly thereafter, most if not all of NATO went 5.56mm. (Except for the 'Rad's not-quite-disastrous experiment with that 4.7mm caseless round.)

I think the real question is, is there some S.L.A.Marshal-equivalent gathering all the anecdotes about the relative effectiveness of the various weapons, rounds, etc?

Ben, the Geneva's only concern treatment of wounded and POW's.

The Hague Protocols concern with the law of warfare, et al use of projectiles that, by design, create more damage than necessary to kill.......a most silly conclusion if one thinks about it.

Size counts. My son is a Special Forces type. They carry 5.56 mm poodle shooters despite all the hype.

This is just wrong. I hate that round. The tumble thing is wrong. It is based on initial cartridges for the M16 that failed. Ball poweder. It was upgraded. Now the 5.56 punches through like a hot knife throub buter.
The " you can carry twice the ammo" BS falls flat too.
A 30 round mag for a M-16 family poodle shooter on a 3 round burst .. equals 10 rounds. Typically it took 3 round to put down a drugged up terrorist. So in essence you have 10 shots (3 round bursts) in a 30 round mag. That's two more than an M1.

No round will guarantee dropping a crap heat with one round. I would put my faith in a .30 caliber evertime.

For those of you who still believe the "tumble effect of a 5.56 round .... prove it.

Not Spam just a conservative dude. I have started a new blog to help get small conservative blogs more traffic. http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com if you want me to include your blog shoot me an email with your blog address at greenacreshayfarms@gmail.com and I will put up a link along with a feed to your latest postings.

With my limited experience (32 over three tours in Iraq) I have found example of standard issue 5.56 having more wounding and less stopping power. Followup shots are mandatory - as they should be in any caliber to be certain. The most effective means we found was to try and scrounge, beg, borrow or steal enough special purpose ball ( 5.56mm mk 262) ammunition to at least have the first four or five rounds in each magazine be effective. Standard ammo doesn't have the necessary punch, follow up shots were needed many times just to shoot out vehicle windows. Mk 262 makes the difference. It has been said by smarter and more experienced people than me that the difference comes from the round not the caliber.

CavScout- you are right- absent all other consideration tho, we have to weigh in caliber- since we are stuck (by int'l law) with FMJ, 'alternate' types of rounds of same caliber are out, FTMP.

So we thro bigger balls ...

Wolf

The issue of "stopping power" is one I hear lots of opinion about but not much that is authoritative, and I'm really curious about the reality. I see the argument all the time in the 9mm vs .45 argument.

This seems like a good place to ask. So here's what I've read and what makes sense from a physics/physiological standpoint.

Authoritative comments?

Not having experience at this, I've read (from trauma surgeons) that it takes a hit on the CNS (or maybe the right bone) to stop someone quickly, at any caliber. Even a heart shot, while lethal, may give the subject 10 or 15 seconds of action. One article suggested that many people in the US who drop when hit do so because they've seen to much TV... I'm hit, I'd better fall.

I have also read that most rifle rounds are aerodynamically unstable (but spin stabilized) and will tumble upon entering flesh. Apparently some or all US 5.56 slugs shatter when they tumble, adding to the wound damage and the momentum delivered, and the early reports from Vietnam.

If you read battle reports from Vietnam, there are numerous reports of Americans, hit many times with ultimately fatal wounds, performing effectively on the battlefield for many seconds to minutes. Many MOW award write-ups have this, and these are people hit with 7.62 AK rounds.

Notice also that a larger round has a somewhat higher probability of hitting a critical structure (as does an expanding round).

On the other hand, some speculate that the hydrodynamic shock of a high momentum hit may cause immediate collapse. I've not seen this from medical folks.

Anyone know the "skinny" on this?

(I was a naval aviator and we didn't have these little popguns... our smallest caliber was 70mm).

Try a d.p.m.s. upper reciver, matched with the black hills 5.56 rd.! barrel is shorter, and will put em down everytime!
nuff said! allons!

I think the FN SCAR that your SOCOM guys chose (and that OPFOR talked about in March of 2008) is an interesting compromise: stay with the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds, but let the soldiers interchange as required depending on their own preference and the needs of their particular mission.

How many billions of dollars will it cost to do a switch?

I was one of those Marines who like to shoot things from far away. The 6.5 Grendel sounds like the best compromise of size and downrange accuracy and hitting power.

All the “experts” like to say the Infantry firefights are all inside 300 yards. I was in battles in the first Gulf War were ALL the fights were 500+ yards. Some of the fights in Afghanistan are pretty long range too – that’s why we see guys lugging around M14’s.

I have an M4 Carbine for home defense against rabid river otters.. it is in 5.56mm and it makes a nice rifle. I recently purchased a 6.8SPC upper for it, and it is simply amazing. Put one into the hands of everybody in a warzone today!

reality. As Jimbo rightly pointed out, it's a logistics thing more than a question of if it's a better cartridge or not. If we send an eight man team deep into a bad place on an operation, and they are loaded out with super fancy guns with oddball caliber ammunition, then they are only at the razor edge of technology, and have that advantage until they run out of the very finite amount of ammo they can carry directlly on their person. If they are deep inside a hostile nation, there will be no air drops of resupply.

The 9mmP round is common all over the world, wether you are fighting in Iraq, Belgium or Chicago there is a ready supply of 9mmP, same is true in eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America with regards to the 7.62X39 AK round.

It is similar in a way to the Air War discussion back in the bad old days, the West kept making more modern planes, but fewer of them, sure the F - Whatever jet was amazing, but we could only afford a 1:10 ratio to replace older ones with, and it only carries X amount of missles, the Bad guys had more planes than we could put missles into the air! The old joke was two Russian Generals meet in Paris and one asks the other "Who won the air war?"

The 5.56mm has always had knocks against it, always will, there have been improvements, the SS109 isnt a bad round, but is lacks compared to the 7.62X54N round. The 7.62X54N is heavier and the rifle to fire it is as well.

the ONLY way around it is to have all of NATO switch to a new rifle round, and that isnt likely anytime soon, we just got everyone standardized on the OLD round. so if we go 6.8SPC.. then everyone needs to do it, not just us, and then at least a year of mass production of the ammo to even make it viable widescale. If we are going to do that, then you deisgn a new rifle to fire it, since the AR/M 15/16 series rifles are getting a tad long in the tooth.

in the 60's we released a new round to go with the new rifle, thats how you do it again, the cost of an armorer replacing barrels on existing M16/M4 rifles, vs just buying a new one in bulk would be negligible.

M8 with the 6.8SPC? I could true not to hate that :)

(I had typed up a long winded diatribe that got lost when I hit "post"...if this 2nd attempt ends up being a dupe, my apologies, and please someone with mojo delete it.)

With all that adopting a new cartridge entails, from retraining the armorers to getting the logistics guys to accept a few more links in the chain, I really can't see widespread issue of another caliber until a new weapons system is adopted to replace the M16/M4 series.

For those who think we have an existing substitute in the M14, yes they are being lugged around with some success in the sandbox, but good M14 armorers are getting rare (and keeping a stable of M14s running takes a very good armorer on that system) and parts are getting scarcer than honest men in Congress.

6.8mm SPC is a very interesting cartridge (I'm building a 6.8mm Scout as I type this...please don't ask how it's going, my wife just balanced the checkbook and she's taking over the project sitreps) but two cartridges for one weapon system (which is what rechambering/re-uppering M4s would give you, because not everyone is going to get 6.8 right away) would give some bean counter a heart attack, and bean counters get to Lt. Gen rank too.

Count me a fan of the 6.5 bullet as well, but if we were lucky enough to see a 6.5 get adopted in any form, I'd rather see .260 Remington get the nod over 6.5 Grendel.

I love this debate because all sorts of brainstorming/"I never saw it from that angle before" type stuff comes out of it...great conversation all.

Quite an interesting post. I am down on the side of agreement that we need to consider a new round, I don't have great issue with the platform, although I like almost anything better than the M16 family of weapons, personal preference more than anything.

Rumor from the SHOT show has it that Remington is set to introduce a short 30 caliber round that will work in its recently introduced line of AR-15 platforms. We'll have to wait and see if it is markedly superior to the ballistics oc 7.62X39mm.

Back in the late 70's early 80's (I know, ancient history for most current service members) a wildcat round called the 30 Apache had been developed for the AR-15/M16 platform. I believe it basicall knecked up the 5.56x45mm case to .30. If I remember correctly it seemed to outperform the standard 5.56nato and edged the 7.62x39mm. It never seems to have caught on.

This circular argument "knock down power" has been going on at least since 1936. The original Garand was chambered for .276 Pedersen which had the same ballistics as the current crop of 6.8 (.277 cal) cartridges. The M1 was mass produced in 30-06 because GEN MacArthur thought that the Army had so many 30-06 rounds left from WWI that they would waste money converting to another caliber. The same argument that will be used today to avoid the conversion.

When I went through basic, oh so many years ago, we were told that the .223 round was basically unstable and would tumble starting with the first thing it hit. The idea being that you put a round in a guys chest and it tumbled around and came out through a hip or somesuch. Having naturally shredded all the soft tissue between the entry and exit points.

I take it that the practice did not bear out the theory?

SSG Jeff - That may have been true with the original M16 and 49 grain ammo. Since the M16A2 and later, we went to heavier / slower rounds that are more accurate and better penetrate body armor. Most of the Army is using the short-barreled M4 which makes the round slower still. They also have much tighter barrel twist that gives the round more stability. More stable and slower rounds = no more tumble.

Matt – I’m not a big fan of the M16/4 family either. The reliability and the ergonomics left much to be desired. It’s a 50 year-old design that should be replaced.

Another vote for the 6.5 Grendel as making sense; I freely admit not having used it.
www.65grendel.com
www.alexanderarms.com/grendel.htm

By the way, it was the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, not the Geneva Convention, that established the no-expanding-projectile ideology.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.

It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Parties, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.

The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.

The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.

Regardless of casing and load, 7.62 bullets are designed to kill man sized or larger targets. While 5.56 bullets are designed to kill small-mid sized animal targets. (They work great on coyotes with my 22-250, as well as my friends .223).

If we're not using bullets designed to kill people, then we are really using bullets that primarily will only wound people. And we are required to adjust our tactics accordingly.

So, other than the resupply isssues (which are really really important in a strategic context) what we have whith the 5.56 based ammunition is that it just takes more of them to actually kill an enemy soldier.

Having said that, the idea that a soldier can carry more ammo and send more rounds downrange is often offset by the fact that he needs those extra rounds to actually take an enemy down. So far a strategic trad-off, on a tacical level a wounded but still motivated enemy can fight quite effectively.

Bottom line is that as long as whe have smart people using the weapons we will continue to have effective tactical advantage.

I've carried both the 5.56 and the 7.62 (M14 and M16) and I will tell you, there is no comparison. I'll take the 5.56 hands down. Not even close.

As far as knocking a man down? Who cares? I don't want to knock down anything other than a few beers from time to time. You hit somebody with a 5.56 and he is serious trouble. Very serious.

There's the myth about the 5.56mm tumbling? It doesn't. Not in reality. What it does is follow the path of least resistance. It's moving so fast when it hits something that it just goes where it can. You can hit somebody in the arm and have it come out their neck because the bullet just doesn't want to slow down.

As far as killing someone? I don't want to kill anybody. I want them out of action. You wound somebody and he becomes a burden to everybody around him. He tends to make a lot of noise, somebody has to carry him to the medics who have to give him plasma or blood, and then there's the doctors and surgeons who are having their time taken up by a wounded soldier. Kill him and all you got is a martyr.

Then there's the weight. I carried about 380 rounds as my basic load. I've heard of others carrying a lot more but that's what I carried. Two ammo pouches with four 20 round mags in each (loaded with 19 rounds each) and two more with FIVE boxes of 5.56 each. And one mag in the rifle. What's that? Okay, 371. Math was never my strong suit.

And after humping the boonies for five to eight days or more, carrying all the necessary goodies in your rucksack, plus water, a knife, maybe a grenade (or not) and a bottle of tabasco, that stuff gets a little heavy.

Yeah, if I was in a defensive position I'd like to have a bigger weapon. But if you're humping the bush..........

I tend to think that given that neither a 5.56 or 7.62 will necessary make the bad guy and a switch to 6.8 won't magically impart that ability either. And changing a bunch of guns to a new upper is going to be a pain, with dangerous hiccups. The military should get more AR-10 for it's troops. The amount of training between the two should be small. In a perfect world the troops/commanders would choose between to two based on the mission and terrain. There won't ever be enough rifles for everyone to have a choice, but there are times when one wants long range, and times to want small light weight.

"neither a 5.56 or 7.62 will necessary make the bad guy" lie down

sigh

First off, a few minor items of fact:

-you cannot use 5.56/.223 mags for feed either 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel rounds. The indents on the sides of the mags are different for all three rounds, as are the followers. So replacing the 5.56 with either one would require, at a minimum (and just for the M16/M4), replacement of barrels, bolt assemblies (bolt, extractor, extractor spring), and mags, and probably gas tubes, buffers, and recoil springs. SAWs have a whole different set of parts, not to mention the links for the ammo belts.

-ALL spitzer type rifle bullets-from 5.56 to .50 BMG and beyond-will tumble on impact before eventually ending up traveling ass end first. It's just a matter of how far they penetrate before doing so, and how long it takes to reach ass-first attitude once they begin to yaw/tumble. This is a function of a whole host of interrelated factors - velocity at impact, bullet design (length, mass, center of gravity), and what exactly the bullet is penetrating.

-the SS109/M855 round was adopted post-Vietnam at least in part because Big Army had decided it didn't want to play Small Wars anymore, concentrating on the Big War Soviet/Warsaw Pact threat instead. At the infantry level, that meant the threat was WP infantry, wearing helmets and flak vests, vice bad guys wearing black pajamas. Against this threat, the M855 greatly outperforms the M193.

What the Russians have been much better than us at is developing different bullets, for the same caliber, for different threats and environments and thus tactical needs. Long range accuracy vs short range damage vs ability to penetrate armor and/or cover.

While nobody has yet to discover an optimum formula, I do find it interesting that things keep coming back to rounds in the 6.5-7mm range (6.5 Swede Mauser, Carcano, and Jap, .276 Pederson, .280 Brit, 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel), then getting rejected for whatever reason. (Logistics with the .276 and now 6.8 and 6.5, perceived lack of power for the Carcano, Jap, and Brit. The Swede served from the 1890s until after WWII, and is still widely used in Scandanvia for hunting deer, elk, etc.)

Personally, my ideal might take the old Czech 7.62x45 round (quashed by the Soviets in the name of standardization) necked down to 6.5mm with a 120-130mm bullet, in a new rifle and LMG.

1. I remember seeing a video of the British attack on the Falklands. A Brit soldier hit an Argentine soldier with several M-16 rounds to no effect. He complained to his Sgt.

2. A study of handgun effects showed that non-head wounds are disabling in proportion to the energy and size of the bullet. True stopping power happens with the big magnums.

3.Much better to have one powerful round than need 10-20 M-16 rounds in an urban area with lots of innocent folks around.

4. M-16 was never a success. Having a light weight rifle is almost always a mistake. Let a new rifle be included at the squad level, with a great night scope, enormous rounds, and trained shooters. Let there be an enormous competition for the M-16 replacement. Bigger rifles mean more success.

Give please Friends!.
I am from Morocco and know bad English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Citing your references when you write your bibliography, list all of your references."

Thanks :). Nemo.

Ein Kompliment für diese tolle Seite.
Eigentlich bin ich durch Zufall darauf gestoßen und dachte mir,
einen netten Eintrag und viele Grüße zu hinterlassen.
Vielleicht schauen sie mal auf meiner Homepage vorbei!

Willkommen im Urlaub an der Ostsee oder Nordsee!

Tolle Informationen, viele Grüße aus Schönberg!

Best regards from the north of germany....
Holiday at the Schönberger Strand at the baltic sea (Ostsee)......
_____ \\\!!!///____
______( ô ô )_____
___ooO-(_)-Ooo___

Best regards from the north of germany....
Holiday at the Schönberger Strand at the baltic sea (Ostsee)......
_____ \\\!!!///____
______( ô ô )_____
___ooO-(_)-Ooo___