Yup.A Battle Rifle is a rifle that you cannot afford to practice with.
To the anti's any rifle that is "black" is a "evil black rifle" which is define to them as a "battle rifle" But a true one is full auto
Yup.A Battle Rifle is a rifle that you cannot afford to practice with.
Moving into Afghanistan...the insurgents have moved from house to house fights out into the fields and mountains. They learned against the Russians, in another 10 year war (the Russians gave up and quit) to hide in the hills and snipe. A recent video showed a platoon tied down and hiding from a single sniper that was shooting from beyond the maximum capability of the M4's. In a situation like that, all the troops can do is call in for back up! Which resulted in a missile strike that killed helpless civilians. Would a few 7.62's have helped in that situation..in my opinion - yes! Oh, well.
Doug, I was just giving you a hard time. I actually read the post in its entirety, and it really was a good speech (though it really did seem that you were trying to sell something/running for office). I believe the mods pay more attention to content rather than length, so I don't believe your post is going anywhere.I am not perfect and neither is anyone else in this world...I like this board very much, and hope we can all get along.
My point is that a 7.62 gun wouldnt have made a difference there either since they didnt know where the sniper was."In that video, the marines werent unable to lay down fire because the M4 was out of range. They didnt know where the sniper was in that huge long treeline. Its really hard to effectively suppress and kill an enemy hiding in a couple hundred yards of treeline and (y)ou dont know where he is."
That was the point I was trying to make. Counter-sniper work is very specialized and requires a bit more than pray and spray until you are out of ammo.
Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each?How long, with today's reduced factory production, would it take to produce 100,000 new rifles of some as-of-yet unknown design...with 10,000,000 new cartridges?
They all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.For a battle rifle what is the preferred sight? an open or peep sight for very fast target acquisition or a scope where you can reach out further and touch someone but takes longer to site in target
Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.Can we please give the poor boys more than 100rnds of ammo each?
They all have advantages. Open sites are quicker (express type faster yet), but are less accurate. Apertures are more accurate, and still quick, but IME tend to perform poorly in low light conditions. Red-dot style optics are faster for most folks, but are electronic so they are more prone to breakage and require batteries (mostly a non-issue because the military replaces the batteries somewhat frequently), more importantly they can exhibit "flare" (or be too dim) and they are worse for someone with astigmatism (like myself). Traditional optics with low power, variable magnification are great at all ranges, but are somewhat more prone to breakage than other types of equipment (though optics have improved greatly in the past few decades). Personally I would choose a rugged low-magnification optic (like a NF), with BUIS (aperture) just in case.
Playing devils advocate here, but is it really any worse than an Aimpoint, or [gasp] a ACOG (which is technically a scope, and a darn good one)?Also whenever you add a scope to a rifle it makes it that much bulkier or less handy/easy to handle climb, crawl etc.
Not nearly as bad as they were in the not-too-distant past. Case in point: ACOG, or NF, or S&B. In fact any scope with a robust tube design, solid internals, and etched reticle will hold up pretty darn good, some better than the rifles they are placed on IMO.Probably scopes are alot more prone and sensitive to damage.