aimed rifle fire by infantry?
- Thread starter roscoe
- Start date
- Status
Some questions:
1. Name any battle of any size that was won solely due to aimed rifle fire, the forces being approximately equal.
2. Name any war that was decided solely on the basis of the quality of the infantry rifle involved, with discipline, training, airpower, etc. either playing no part or being equal. (Did the Germans or Japanese lose solely because the M1 rifle was "better", or did control of the air, interdiction of supply lines, and a couple of nukes have something to do with it?)
3. Name any battle or war that was won by the US solely because our vaunted .45 pistol was better than the pistol used by the enemy.
Jim
1. Name any battle of any size that was won solely due to aimed rifle fire, the forces being approximately equal.
2. Name any war that was decided solely on the basis of the quality of the infantry rifle involved, with discipline, training, airpower, etc. either playing no part or being equal. (Did the Germans or Japanese lose solely because the M1 rifle was "better", or did control of the air, interdiction of supply lines, and a couple of nukes have something to do with it?)
3. Name any battle or war that was won by the US solely because our vaunted .45 pistol was better than the pistol used by the enemy.
Jim
Badger Arms
Member
Jim:
You appear to be making accusations here. Is there anybody saying that aimed fire is the sole decisive tool on the battlefield? Far from it. I doubt that anybody would want our army equiped exclusively with Ruger No 1 rifles in caliber 300 Win Mag with high-powered scopes. That being said, I believe that Carlos Hathcock fought and dominated a battle armed only with a Wincherster Model 70 rifle and a spotter with a scoped M-14 and a radio. He called in flares and, in the end, radioed for artillery to cover his retreat. I think it was either a company or a batallion that he held down and decimated. The forces were decidedly NOT equal in size in this situation. What exactly was your point here.
Wars are not decided by the quality of infantry marksmanship, but by the quality, resolve, and support of the total force. One should not ignore aimed fire because wars have never been won with it. No war was ever won with Air Power either, but I doubt the Air Force is going away soon. (in the end, the Marines had to invade Kuwait in spite of a pounding that Iraqi forces got at the hands of the Air Force).
I'm not quite sure this thread had anything to do with the Colt 1911. Where did that come up? That is more an argument of stopping power and the value of handguns in combat than it is one of aimed fire by infantry.
I think that Mogadishu was lost by Somali thugs solely because they did not practice aimed fire. A handful of hunting rifles and a little marksmanship would have brought our rescue to a grinding, bloody halt. As I understand it, over 1000 Somalis died and managed to take only a few Americans with them. This despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers, in numbers of weapons, and in position. They ALWAYS surrounded us.
Aimed fire does not generally win battles, campaigns, or wars. It does serve as a force multiplier, demoralizer and inexpensive tool for eliminating the enemy. Stalingrad? Carlos Hathcock?
You appear to be making accusations here. Is there anybody saying that aimed fire is the sole decisive tool on the battlefield? Far from it. I doubt that anybody would want our army equiped exclusively with Ruger No 1 rifles in caliber 300 Win Mag with high-powered scopes. That being said, I believe that Carlos Hathcock fought and dominated a battle armed only with a Wincherster Model 70 rifle and a spotter with a scoped M-14 and a radio. He called in flares and, in the end, radioed for artillery to cover his retreat. I think it was either a company or a batallion that he held down and decimated. The forces were decidedly NOT equal in size in this situation. What exactly was your point here.
Wars are not decided by the quality of infantry marksmanship, but by the quality, resolve, and support of the total force. One should not ignore aimed fire because wars have never been won with it. No war was ever won with Air Power either, but I doubt the Air Force is going away soon. (in the end, the Marines had to invade Kuwait in spite of a pounding that Iraqi forces got at the hands of the Air Force).
I'm not quite sure this thread had anything to do with the Colt 1911. Where did that come up? That is more an argument of stopping power and the value of handguns in combat than it is one of aimed fire by infantry.
I think that Mogadishu was lost by Somali thugs solely because they did not practice aimed fire. A handful of hunting rifles and a little marksmanship would have brought our rescue to a grinding, bloody halt. As I understand it, over 1000 Somalis died and managed to take only a few Americans with them. This despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers, in numbers of weapons, and in position. They ALWAYS surrounded us.
Aimed fire does not generally win battles, campaigns, or wars. It does serve as a force multiplier, demoralizer and inexpensive tool for eliminating the enemy. Stalingrad? Carlos Hathcock?
Mike Irwin
Member
Jim,
Battle of Plevna probably comes closest to meeting your criteria for No. 1.
Then, of course, there's always Amritsar... Not exactly a battle though...
Battle of Plevna probably comes closest to meeting your criteria for No. 1.
Then, of course, there's always Amritsar... Not exactly a battle though...
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Rourke's Drift is what your thinking of John.
Thanks, Al.
I was wrong, to some degree. It seems the Zulus had some firearms, at least:
http://www.battlefields.co.za/history/anglo-zulu_war/rorkes_drift/rorkes_gs.htm
I was wrong, to some degree. It seems the Zulus had some firearms, at least:
http://www.battlefields.co.za/history/anglo-zulu_war/rorkes_drift/rorkes_gs.htm
chieftain
Member
Wars of today are about heavy weapons. Frankly since the American Civil war, Called the First Modern war by many, heavy weapons are/were the difference.
With that said, any infantry force that cannot engage effectively at maximum range of their organic weapons has a serious problem.
Being able to effectively engage with long range accurate fire is an effective tool. Just as the ability to engage at close range is an effective tool. Both are required skills for an infantry formation.
Several selected major American battles where our infantry did not have the small arms advantage.
Most famous were, San Juan Hill, Spanish Mausers vs Krag Jorgenson 30-40's. We won the battle but got decimated due to the effective long range fire of the Spanish Mausers.
Like the British in the Boar war, we used the experience of the Spanish American war to up grade our small arms to the Springfield '03. The British of course up graded to the best bolt action battle rifle ever issued, the enfield! No one else had the 10 round magazine!
We fought the worst of GuadalCanal with Marines equiped with '03's. After they were relived by the Army equipped with M1 Garands the Marines were pissed off to find out that command did not consider the M1 that much of an advantage over the 03. And had not pushed to get them to the embattled troops.
Yup, Edison ridge etal was won with the 03 and accurate rifle fire!
Another guy already mentioned Chosen, It was the rifle fire not the Airsupport that pulled them through, Was the CAS important, damned right it was, was the Arty critical, damned right it was, but in the end, it's always the RIFLE and the man carrying it!
At the 'Canal the US Navy left the 1stMarDiv with no Navel or Air support at one time. Just their organic artillary and weapons! I went in the Corps while the last of the WWII and some of the Korean war guys were still on duty.
They all cautioned, they will leave you to save themselves when push comes to shove! The only ones to depend on are other Marines! Most of the time the other services will or may show up, but only depend on yourself, your rifle and other Marines all the time. These were men that faught on the 'Canal and at Chosen and 100 other battles of WW II and Korea.
I personally found it no different in Viet Nam. Some time explain to me why we were on the DMZ and not down in the Delta doing the Riverine mission? Ya, explain that one!
It's always about the Rifle in the end! Yours and your buddies.
Fred
With that said, any infantry force that cannot engage effectively at maximum range of their organic weapons has a serious problem.
Being able to effectively engage with long range accurate fire is an effective tool. Just as the ability to engage at close range is an effective tool. Both are required skills for an infantry formation.
Several selected major American battles where our infantry did not have the small arms advantage.
Most famous were, San Juan Hill, Spanish Mausers vs Krag Jorgenson 30-40's. We won the battle but got decimated due to the effective long range fire of the Spanish Mausers.
Like the British in the Boar war, we used the experience of the Spanish American war to up grade our small arms to the Springfield '03. The British of course up graded to the best bolt action battle rifle ever issued, the enfield! No one else had the 10 round magazine!
We fought the worst of GuadalCanal with Marines equiped with '03's. After they were relived by the Army equipped with M1 Garands the Marines were pissed off to find out that command did not consider the M1 that much of an advantage over the 03. And had not pushed to get them to the embattled troops.
Yup, Edison ridge etal was won with the 03 and accurate rifle fire!
Another guy already mentioned Chosen, It was the rifle fire not the Airsupport that pulled them through, Was the CAS important, damned right it was, was the Arty critical, damned right it was, but in the end, it's always the RIFLE and the man carrying it!
At the 'Canal the US Navy left the 1stMarDiv with no Navel or Air support at one time. Just their organic artillary and weapons! I went in the Corps while the last of the WWII and some of the Korean war guys were still on duty.
They all cautioned, they will leave you to save themselves when push comes to shove! The only ones to depend on are other Marines! Most of the time the other services will or may show up, but only depend on yourself, your rifle and other Marines all the time. These were men that faught on the 'Canal and at Chosen and 100 other battles of WW II and Korea.
I personally found it no different in Viet Nam. Some time explain to me why we were on the DMZ and not down in the Delta doing the Riverine mission? Ya, explain that one!
It's always about the Rifle in the end! Yours and your buddies.
Fred
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
During the Chosin Reservoir, the 50th AAA (SP) had at least one battery along for the ride. 8 half-tracks with quad-.50s; 8 M-19 light tanks with twin 40mms.
Art
Art
It depends on the situation and who you are fighting.
Two groups are shooting at each other 600 yds away. One has bolt action 308 rifles, the other is armed with AKM's.
Who would win?
Now put them 75 yds away.
Who would have the advantage?
(Who ever had the best air support.)
Two groups are shooting at each other 600 yds away. One has bolt action 308 rifles, the other is armed with AKM's.
Who would win?
Now put them 75 yds away.
Who would have the advantage?
(Who ever had the best air support.)
Smokey Joe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,617
Accurate shooting
Goon: The point is, that the AKM guys would never live to get 75 yd. away. Their advance from 600 yd. would cost them most of their manpower, and all of their morale. And I'd have scouts out encircling and harassing them at night, so no sneak attacks. We're assuming that neither side, here, can call in outside interference. BTW, in the debriefing I'd be complaining to Battalion about having .308's instead of .30-'06's.
You know the rest. In the books you have read, how the British regulars fired and fled/ How the farmers gave them ball for ball, from behind each fence and farmyard wall...Chasing the Redcoats down the road, and only pausing to fire and load.
We Americans have always had an affinity for accurate shooting.
Long live the rifleman.
Goon: The point is, that the AKM guys would never live to get 75 yd. away. Their advance from 600 yd. would cost them most of their manpower, and all of their morale. And I'd have scouts out encircling and harassing them at night, so no sneak attacks. We're assuming that neither side, here, can call in outside interference. BTW, in the debriefing I'd be complaining to Battalion about having .308's instead of .30-'06's.
You know the rest. In the books you have read, how the British regulars fired and fled/ How the farmers gave them ball for ball, from behind each fence and farmyard wall...Chasing the Redcoats down the road, and only pausing to fire and load.
We Americans have always had an affinity for accurate shooting.
Long live the rifleman.
Zorro
Member
No weapon REALLY ever becomes completely Obselete
Swords? Machetes still are used.
Axes? Still get used.
Pistols? Still used.
Knifes? Still used.
Clubs? Still get used as do hammers.
Long Range Riflemen? Will always be used no matter how good Air to Ground Technology gets.
There is always going to be a special circumstance that is best solved by an old method.
Swords? Machetes still are used.
Axes? Still get used.
Pistols? Still used.
Knifes? Still used.
Clubs? Still get used as do hammers.
Long Range Riflemen? Will always be used no matter how good Air to Ground Technology gets.
There is always going to be a special circumstance that is best solved by an old method.
Joe: I was thinking of a Jungle type environment when I said that. I also much rather have a scoped 30 caliber bolt-gun and a bipod than any assault rifle. I have fired M-16's and have found them to be more accurate than the semi-auto AK's that I have owned, but they still seem underpowered when compared to a 308, '06, or a 7.62x54.
I just like a little kick.
Is there anything so wrong with that?
On the subject of AK's, they are well known to be about as reliable as your average claw-hammer, but also about as accurate. I think that I was more accurate with a slingshot when I was 8 than I am with an AK now.
That doesn't suit me. I will not use a rifle that I can outshoot, so most AK's are out.
In the debreifing, I would be complaining about not being able to get ammo for the 30'06 that you had issued me. But I wouldn't complain about the fact that I was armed way better than the other guys.
It is all academic.
I just like a little kick.
Is there anything so wrong with that?
On the subject of AK's, they are well known to be about as reliable as your average claw-hammer, but also about as accurate. I think that I was more accurate with a slingshot when I was 8 than I am with an AK now.
That doesn't suit me. I will not use a rifle that I can outshoot, so most AK's are out.
In the debreifing, I would be complaining about not being able to get ammo for the 30'06 that you had issued me. But I wouldn't complain about the fact that I was armed way better than the other guys.
It is all academic.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
On the issue of covering the 600 yards under aimed rifle fire, are you assuming that these boys will be walking towards you like the British soldiers of the Revolution? I would think they would be fleeting targets covering the ground in bounding advances that would be hard targets to hit, even for some one in a good rested position. I think you'd be surprised how fast they cover that ground unscathed. Not to mention, even if their return fire is not the most accurate, its going to keep your head down to some extent and at the very least, your not going to be in your top 1/2 moa form. Once with in 200 yards, the AK can easily engage man sized (and smaller) targets that present themselves. Once within 100 yards and closing they will have the advantage, especially at close quaters. Assuming that you are better armed and better capable than the next boy is a dangerous thing. Its not the weapon in your hands that makes you deadly, its the person holding the weapon what makes "it" deadly. If you assume the boy in front of you with the "inferior" rifle is going to act as you want him to, and stand up and still and present a nice target for you at 500 yards, then I think he will have himself a "nice" battle trophy when its over.
jar
Contributing Member
Depends on the time, place and circumstances. WWI degenerated to a series of futile charges of men against are suppression fire. In nearly every case, men lost, area suppression won. Then there was the 99% of the war when Men in trenches faced other men in trenchs. During that part of the conflict, aimed fire ruled.
Bringing in the issue of support firepower simply muddies the water. When talking about how best to use rifles, it's the situation that determines the best tactic. WWI proved that charging area suppresion fire was usually not the brightest thing to do. So when faced with that choice, the US Army decided that most any other option than the man carried rifle was the best choice.
There is still a place for aimed fire and when used properly, it can be devistating and in some cases, decisive. It certainly is not an issue of one or the other, rather it's which one to employ in a given instance. An army without both in it's tool box will be severely limited.
PS: does this same analogy hold true if the base is moved from rifles to, say, bombs? Is the cruise missle or the smart bomb the technological cild of Aimed Fire, while cluster bombs, FA type bombs and the newest rocket artilery pieces the technological child of area suppression fire?
Bringing in the issue of support firepower simply muddies the water. When talking about how best to use rifles, it's the situation that determines the best tactic. WWI proved that charging area suppresion fire was usually not the brightest thing to do. So when faced with that choice, the US Army decided that most any other option than the man carried rifle was the best choice.
There is still a place for aimed fire and when used properly, it can be devistating and in some cases, decisive. It certainly is not an issue of one or the other, rather it's which one to employ in a given instance. An army without both in it's tool box will be severely limited.
PS: does this same analogy hold true if the base is moved from rifles to, say, bombs? Is the cruise missle or the smart bomb the technological cild of Aimed Fire, while cluster bombs, FA type bombs and the newest rocket artilery pieces the technological child of area suppression fire?
Joe Demko
Member
Hogwash.
AK-103- A fellow PA'er.
I'm not AK bashing. It is just that my experience leads me to believe that a trained rifleman would be better off with something that has more range, power and accuracy.
AK's are about as good as you could ask for up close. The only disadvantage is that in order for your AK to be effective, you have to get close enough that their AK's will hit you too.
Confronted with the remote scenario of the advancing bad guys coming at me, the best weapon to have against those infantrymen would be an entrenched Ma Deuce in an elevated position with an AG, a couple spare barrels and all the ammo I could find. Unfortunately, I am fresh out of those, so a "deer rifle" is the most viable choice for me.
Also, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that you may own an AK-103. How do you rate it? I have considered the Saiga conversions from AK-USA, but I am still not quite ready to get one yet. I still have to buy more C&R guns.
I'm not AK bashing. It is just that my experience leads me to believe that a trained rifleman would be better off with something that has more range, power and accuracy.
AK's are about as good as you could ask for up close. The only disadvantage is that in order for your AK to be effective, you have to get close enough that their AK's will hit you too.
Confronted with the remote scenario of the advancing bad guys coming at me, the best weapon to have against those infantrymen would be an entrenched Ma Deuce in an elevated position with an AG, a couple spare barrels and all the ammo I could find. Unfortunately, I am fresh out of those, so a "deer rifle" is the most viable choice for me.
Also, I'm gonna take a wild guess here and say that you may own an AK-103. How do you rate it? I have considered the Saiga conversions from AK-USA, but I am still not quite ready to get one yet. I still have to buy more C&R guns.
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
goon,
I agree that a trained rifleman can be effective at farther ranges, but I think a lot of what is discussed here is to simplistic. I guess for a certain situation, usually weighted in the writers favor and gun choice, the writer will always prevail. Reality is usually a lot less forgiving and has a way of humbling even the best trained shooter. Are we talking of a group of trained shooters(your side), capable of making hits on targets that only show themselves at a hard run for a short time while the second string is laying in covering fire to keep your head down as they leap frog to you. Or are we talking of a group of untrained people(their side) who mainly walk upright and move towards you while throwing rounds your way, making a nice target of themselves? Whats the terrain your in, flat open land or gullies and washes in thick woods? I think if your dealing with a trained opponent who knows to close with you and knows how to accomplish just that, you will be very busy "trying" to stop them. And just to throw a wrench in the mix, what if they also have riflemen with your capabilities, who selectivly take your "fixed" shooters, as they concentrate on stopping those moving towards you. There are just to many variables to cover with a fixed answer. It would be nice to be able to sit back and pick them all off before they get to you, but I dont think thats realistic, unless they are total morons.
As for the AK103, I have a Krebs AK103K. Its a great little rifle. Of all my AK's it the most accurate. It actually does better at 100 yards than my Bushmaster Disapator, but 200 yards would be my limit, not that it might not do better farther, I know with my eyes it wont.
I agree that a trained rifleman can be effective at farther ranges, but I think a lot of what is discussed here is to simplistic. I guess for a certain situation, usually weighted in the writers favor and gun choice, the writer will always prevail. Reality is usually a lot less forgiving and has a way of humbling even the best trained shooter. Are we talking of a group of trained shooters(your side), capable of making hits on targets that only show themselves at a hard run for a short time while the second string is laying in covering fire to keep your head down as they leap frog to you. Or are we talking of a group of untrained people(their side) who mainly walk upright and move towards you while throwing rounds your way, making a nice target of themselves? Whats the terrain your in, flat open land or gullies and washes in thick woods? I think if your dealing with a trained opponent who knows to close with you and knows how to accomplish just that, you will be very busy "trying" to stop them. And just to throw a wrench in the mix, what if they also have riflemen with your capabilities, who selectivly take your "fixed" shooters, as they concentrate on stopping those moving towards you. There are just to many variables to cover with a fixed answer. It would be nice to be able to sit back and pick them all off before they get to you, but I dont think thats realistic, unless they are total morons.
As for the AK103, I have a Krebs AK103K. Its a great little rifle. Of all my AK's it the most accurate. It actually does better at 100 yards than my Bushmaster Disapator, but 200 yards would be my limit, not that it might not do better farther, I know with my eyes it wont.
Cool. I thought about the AK-103 from AK-USA. I'm pretty sure that is their 223 caliber conversion. I also had a VEPR K 223 that would put 10 rounds in a little over an inch at 100yds. But it was just too barrel heavy to suit me. They have the balance of a sledge hammer.
I've also heard that the SAR-3's are pretty accurate. This may be attributed to the fact that 223 ammo is generally loaded to better quality than 7.62x39. But they are also known to be kind of shoddy.
AK's are sort of toys to me. I like them because they are cheap to own, they almost always work, and ammo is about $80 for 1000rds. But I don't like the fact that most of those pop-cans are safe at 100yds when I am shooting at them with an AK. If I could just find some kind of balance...
Until then I gotta stick with watching cans disintegrate through the scope.
I've also heard that the SAR-3's are pretty accurate. This may be attributed to the fact that 223 ammo is generally loaded to better quality than 7.62x39. But they are also known to be kind of shoddy.
AK's are sort of toys to me. I like them because they are cheap to own, they almost always work, and ammo is about $80 for 1000rds. But I don't like the fact that most of those pop-cans are safe at 100yds when I am shooting at them with an AK. If I could just find some kind of balance...
Until then I gotta stick with watching cans disintegrate through the scope.
Zigokubasi
member
In WWI, when those men going "over the top" got cut down, most of the time it was by something called "the Devil's Paintbrush" - machineguns. Most of the killing power in a squad is in the SAW. Most of the men who died from gunshots (as opposed to arty) in WWI got those from machinegun fire...*accurate* machinegun fire, which is a whole different animal from accurate rifle fire. Lessons learned from WWI resulted in a lot of innovations, like issuing lots of mortars and grenade launchers. Indirect fire from a distance being the best way to counter machineguns.
Now when those men got in trenches, it sure as hell wasn't accurate rifle fire that everyone wanted, it was grenades and submachineguns. Explosives and high-volume close range firepower was the key. I'd sure as hell take a 'trench broom' over an Enfield in that situation any day....
Accurate rifle fire is very important, and can be much more so in a situation where you lack support, such as the early days of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan versus the Soviets. Crusty old bolt-action Enfields ruled in the open terrain of Afghanistan against the AKM. Some Spetsnaz units tried to issue SVDs to as many men as possible to counter that advantage. But eventually, the Mujs got ahold of heavy MGs, mortars, RPGs, and other dandy weapons captured from the Soviets. That changed their behavior quite a bit, but the essence was still there. Even an AK is deadly at range in capable hands.
The 600m .308 vs. AK scenario is unrealistic. Any army worth its salt would have little trouble finding cover and a) moving to close with that unit, b) withdrawing under fire, or c) hunkering down and calling for support. The best bet for those marksmen with the .308's would be to inflict as many casualties as they could before the targets found cover, then fade away. Against a competent adversary, you're not going to win with marksmanship alone, but it sure doesn't hurt....
I'm not sure what AKs you guys are using, but I've never had any trouble hitting a man sized target out to 200 yards with my old MAK-90, and I was deadly to paper plates at 100 yds with my friend's MAADI...unless something's really wrong with your rifle, it sould be capable of combat accuracy out to 300yds. Maybe you've got a SAR with canted sights or something?
Now when those men got in trenches, it sure as hell wasn't accurate rifle fire that everyone wanted, it was grenades and submachineguns. Explosives and high-volume close range firepower was the key. I'd sure as hell take a 'trench broom' over an Enfield in that situation any day....
Accurate rifle fire is very important, and can be much more so in a situation where you lack support, such as the early days of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan versus the Soviets. Crusty old bolt-action Enfields ruled in the open terrain of Afghanistan against the AKM. Some Spetsnaz units tried to issue SVDs to as many men as possible to counter that advantage. But eventually, the Mujs got ahold of heavy MGs, mortars, RPGs, and other dandy weapons captured from the Soviets. That changed their behavior quite a bit, but the essence was still there. Even an AK is deadly at range in capable hands.
The 600m .308 vs. AK scenario is unrealistic. Any army worth its salt would have little trouble finding cover and a) moving to close with that unit, b) withdrawing under fire, or c) hunkering down and calling for support. The best bet for those marksmen with the .308's would be to inflict as many casualties as they could before the targets found cover, then fade away. Against a competent adversary, you're not going to win with marksmanship alone, but it sure doesn't hurt....
I'm not sure what AKs you guys are using, but I've never had any trouble hitting a man sized target out to 200 yards with my old MAK-90, and I was deadly to paper plates at 100 yds with my friend's MAADI...unless something's really wrong with your rifle, it sould be capable of combat accuracy out to 300yds. Maybe you've got a SAR with canted sights or something?
AK103K
member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Messages
- 7,610
I'm not saying they wont hit at 300, I think 200 is more reasonable for the 7.62 round, its just that I personally wouldnt have good results with my eyes and the issue sights. I'm sure all my AK's would make the 300 yard hits, some better than others. My SAR's worst groups at 100 yards are around 6" my 103K's best are around 2-3", the others are in between. All in all, I think the 7.62x39 is probably the best all around round for a combat type rifle. Its heavy enough to punch through things a 223 wont and in a package that is smaller and lighter than most 308 caliber guns. Its quicker to shoulder and recoil is easier to recover from for quick repeat shots than the 308. 200 yards and less is probably a more resaonable and probable contact distance and long range guns loose their "handiness" the closer things get. The 223 is to light a bullet to reliably defeat cover and still get to the target. The AK is a handy little rifle that does well for me within my 200 yard self imposed limit. It doent have all the "handicaps" that are always spouted by people who dont like them, especially if you learn the rifle. Lets face it, the weapons weak point is its user.
The particular rifle that convinced me was an SAR-1. I shot twelve shots at a sighting in target with it from a bench at 100yds and didn't hit within about 5inches of the center once. I later sold that one off, and I am currently without an AK. But there is an SA-M7 at a local gunshop that I have been watching very closely...
chieftain
Member
Guys,
I was just thinking, not always a pretty sight or a good thing.
Why do we advocate aimed fire with our handguns, up close but not with our rifles?
Except at contact range, at what point are some of you advocating not aiming?
The ony gun that is supposed to have a beaten zone is the Machine gun, right?
Now in combat accurate fire will not always produce hits! But will usually be close enough to effect the enemy fire/action. and allow your guys, weapons or tatics to be used to advantage.
Please don't lecture me guy's, I did two tours with the 3rdMarDiv in Viet Nam. Got my seen some **** ribbon and a couple of hearts and some other stuff for credentials. I carried an M14 untill the spring of 69. When a Bridadier personally ordered me to turn it in and get a Mattey Mattel.
By the way I really didn't see any difference in stopping power most of the time, only out at range about 150+. And that didn't happen often! There just wasn't much luke could hide behind that I couldn't shoot through. And of course those times when we had long range fire, I could shoot with effect. Usually by the time I had started shooting, the guns had opened up and luke was already down or covered.
So just when do we not need aimed fire? I will start with one, and that is in the assault! any others.
Fred
I was just thinking, not always a pretty sight or a good thing.
Why do we advocate aimed fire with our handguns, up close but not with our rifles?
Except at contact range, at what point are some of you advocating not aiming?
The ony gun that is supposed to have a beaten zone is the Machine gun, right?
Now in combat accurate fire will not always produce hits! But will usually be close enough to effect the enemy fire/action. and allow your guys, weapons or tatics to be used to advantage.
Please don't lecture me guy's, I did two tours with the 3rdMarDiv in Viet Nam. Got my seen some **** ribbon and a couple of hearts and some other stuff for credentials. I carried an M14 untill the spring of 69. When a Bridadier personally ordered me to turn it in and get a Mattey Mattel.
By the way I really didn't see any difference in stopping power most of the time, only out at range about 150+. And that didn't happen often! There just wasn't much luke could hide behind that I couldn't shoot through. And of course those times when we had long range fire, I could shoot with effect. Usually by the time I had started shooting, the guns had opened up and luke was already down or covered.
So just when do we not need aimed fire? I will start with one, and that is in the assault! any others.
Fred
Zigokubasi
member
maybe the marines did things differently...
Chieftan, you were never in a "mad minute" in Vietnam? What did they call it..."exploration by fire" or something like that? As I understand it, it was a fairly common practice for the Army to fire pretty much indiscriminately. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but you can't tell me that charlie was perfectly safe out there in the path of all those rounds...aimed or not.
As far as situation that call for unaimed fire...you got assault, and close range, how about breaking contact? IADs called for an entire mag to be dumped in the general direction of the enemy on automatic while moving to break out of an encirclement or 'retrograde motion' under fire...
Maybe in MOUT too...For instance, if I know there's a guy shooting out of a window, and I don't want him popping his head up while a man moves in to toss a grenade into it, I'm sure going to dump as much ammo into that window as I can, to keep his head down and my buddy alive.
Really, that's about it though. I think the general gist of this thread is that aimed fire is well and good, ideal in fact, but history has shown that it doesn't always work out that way in the field. That's not to devalue your experience in any way Chieftan, veterans are invaluable to those of us who've never "been there".
Chieftan, you were never in a "mad minute" in Vietnam? What did they call it..."exploration by fire" or something like that? As I understand it, it was a fairly common practice for the Army to fire pretty much indiscriminately. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but you can't tell me that charlie was perfectly safe out there in the path of all those rounds...aimed or not.
As far as situation that call for unaimed fire...you got assault, and close range, how about breaking contact? IADs called for an entire mag to be dumped in the general direction of the enemy on automatic while moving to break out of an encirclement or 'retrograde motion' under fire...
Maybe in MOUT too...For instance, if I know there's a guy shooting out of a window, and I don't want him popping his head up while a man moves in to toss a grenade into it, I'm sure going to dump as much ammo into that window as I can, to keep his head down and my buddy alive.
Really, that's about it though. I think the general gist of this thread is that aimed fire is well and good, ideal in fact, but history has shown that it doesn't always work out that way in the field. That's not to devalue your experience in any way Chieftan, veterans are invaluable to those of us who've never "been there".
chieftain
Member
Zigokubasi,
To be sure many times the guys dumped their magazine contents via the barrel.
That's why the Corps was the first organization to go to the Burst selector on the M16. Fire discipline! Contrary to popular belief, even with the soft recoiling 5.56, if you didn't hit it by the second round any chance of hitting the target was purely luck! Some folks will talk about their capability to walk their rounds onto the target. Forget about it.
If you stop shooting and aim at the target you will hit it faster! Fighting even light recoil/noise/motion is more time consuming than aiming and pulling the trigger!
I personally still don't see any need for full auto in the basic rifle. Their primary job should be supporting the SAW which has finaily taken the place of the BAR and attached supporting weapons, MG's, Rockets etc.
I am told that during the Korean war the US Army did a study on infantry fire power. I would love to get hold of the results of the study.
The story goes. The Army equiped one outfit with 03'. Another outfit with normal M1's and a third out fit with all auto firing weapons, M2 Carbines, Thompsons, M3's and extra BAR's, all the outfits were equiped with appropriate number of BAR's (except as stated) and MG's.
The story goes, the 03's inflicted more casualties and took less casualties thant the other two units.
The Semi auto unit inflicted more casualties and took less casualties than the full auto unit.
I sure would like to know if that is true, I believe it but can't prove it.
Remember we have seen similar results with the police while moving from the revolver to the Semi-Auto, more shots and less hits.
I still believe well trained men with any weapon are the answer.
I can tell you that a semi auto becomes damn near automatic under assault! but much more accurate.
And I would not feel under gunned in a military action with my 03! But the weapon I prefer is my M1A(M14) which of course is Semi Auto.
I think the AK47 is the best assault rifle ever made, I just personally don't care for it. My strength with a rifle is being able to reach out an touch someone, not a sniper, just a real good rifle shot.
Zig sorry that I rambled. I hope I answered at least one of your questions.
Good luck
Fred
And May God Bless America
To be sure many times the guys dumped their magazine contents via the barrel.
That's why the Corps was the first organization to go to the Burst selector on the M16. Fire discipline! Contrary to popular belief, even with the soft recoiling 5.56, if you didn't hit it by the second round any chance of hitting the target was purely luck! Some folks will talk about their capability to walk their rounds onto the target. Forget about it.
If you stop shooting and aim at the target you will hit it faster! Fighting even light recoil/noise/motion is more time consuming than aiming and pulling the trigger!
I personally still don't see any need for full auto in the basic rifle. Their primary job should be supporting the SAW which has finaily taken the place of the BAR and attached supporting weapons, MG's, Rockets etc.
I am told that during the Korean war the US Army did a study on infantry fire power. I would love to get hold of the results of the study.
The story goes. The Army equiped one outfit with 03'. Another outfit with normal M1's and a third out fit with all auto firing weapons, M2 Carbines, Thompsons, M3's and extra BAR's, all the outfits were equiped with appropriate number of BAR's (except as stated) and MG's.
The story goes, the 03's inflicted more casualties and took less casualties thant the other two units.
The Semi auto unit inflicted more casualties and took less casualties than the full auto unit.
I sure would like to know if that is true, I believe it but can't prove it.
Remember we have seen similar results with the police while moving from the revolver to the Semi-Auto, more shots and less hits.
I still believe well trained men with any weapon are the answer.
I can tell you that a semi auto becomes damn near automatic under assault! but much more accurate.
And I would not feel under gunned in a military action with my 03! But the weapon I prefer is my M1A(M14) which of course is Semi Auto.
I think the AK47 is the best assault rifle ever made, I just personally don't care for it. My strength with a rifle is being able to reach out an touch someone, not a sniper, just a real good rifle shot.
Zig sorry that I rambled. I hope I answered at least one of your questions.
Good luck
Fred
And May God Bless America
- Status
Similar threads
