D-Day
Member
Horse Soldier said:In what way is an overweight, slower handling weapon with overweight ammunition and a small practical basic load superior to an AK or M4? Target acquisition and successful engagements on the battlefield are pretty much just statistical static past 300 meters on real battlefields (they seem to be much easier shots in Militia fantasies for some reason), so what purpose does a weapon firing a round that compromises <300 meter performance to get longer range performance really serve?
Better cover penetration, more immediate incapacitation, versatility of range, better for hunting if necessary...and battlefields have indeed changed. If for whatever some fantasy siege of whatever entity was attacking, it may happen in an urban environment with lots of cover, cars, light buildings, etc. - think Iraq. Even rurally there is plenty to hide behind. And a .223 just doesn't cut it in a lot of cases.
Bottom line, it's harder to hide from a .308 than a .223. Those "overweight, slower handling weapons" such as the FAL seem to be just fine for the over 90 countries that have employed them as their main service rifle.