Let's hope the ATF doesn't deploy them though...
Posted on 04/03/2010 1:03:04 PM PDT by neverdem
bookmark to watch
BTTT - though McNasty is made up of traitors and
IMO are there to mislead through statements such as “the reporter proved the Pentagon was lying when it suggested there was a link between SoDam Rotting in hell and Al Qaida In Iraq” (like they could get 5 steps across the border w/o an invite), you reminded me that I hadn’t followed up for any updates. I wonder when they added that bit of fantasy, but am looking for clarification on exactly who screwed this pooch, and if/what charges were brought.
Taking snipers from the battalion level and placing them at the platoon level IMO makes more sense (or including a few long guns with the platoon and having some soldiers proficient in their use, not true snipers, but marksmen, that makes the most sense)
I see the misunderstanding now. The default for the M-14 was without the selector switch. We had M-14s in Basic, AIT, Vietnam and back at Fort Belvoir. Don’t think I ever saw a selector switch.
At Belvoir I spent time as acting company armorer. I didn’t know anything about being an armorer but I had enough time left so they made me armorer. Can’t remember having any selector switches.
Wow!
(For a second there, I thought you were listing your own personal collection!)
I suspect he was talking about the "volley fire" tactic, for which the Springfield rifle had sights calibrated to out past 2,000 yards and which an entire squad, platoon or even company could mass their fire to suppress an area target. Obviously, the advantage of a BAR is that one automatic rifleman can drop almost as many .30-06 rounds against an area target as a couple of infantry squads with bolt action rifles. The BAR, with it's longer barrel would give the same round a higher velocity (and consequently a flatter trajectory) than one would get out of a Springfield or Garand. The "walking fire" technique was developed specifically for the trenches, where I suspect it would have been quite effective. Although employed at longer ranges in marches across "no man's land" where it failed miserably, that was not its original intent.
As I stated earlier, I think a modernized BAR or something along those lines would fit the bill. One of the limitations of the BAR was its 20 round mag. I suspect with modern metallurgy and springs, a 30 rounder could be made substantially smaller than it would have been in WWI or WWII. Modern powders would allow for either the same performance to be squeezed out of a 7.62 x 51 (as well as a shorter, lighter receiver), or the original specs could be maintained with a .30-06 round that is far more potent than even the WWII/Korea era performance. I would add a 3-round burst option in addition to semi & full, as well as some different optics packages. Certainly this is not to replace the individual rifleman's battle rifle, but to augment each squad with something that allows for suppressive fire against both point and area targets well beyond the range of the M249, without the weight of an M60 or M240.
Can y’all send me one? ;)
;-)
;-)
Let's not confuse accuracy with trajectory issues. I've shot SKS's at 400 yards with reasonable accuracy. But I could also go pick up the rounds where they hit and penetrated about 1/2" of clay. And AK's (mine)are generally pretty good at 300 yards. I don't know if the Afghans are using shot-out, poorly maintained weapons or not, but I'd imagine they are. But a dozen guys with those and the high ground would be a problem at 500 yards.
Fully jacketed and 100% legal to the best of my knowledge. SS109, as well.
I'm not. Not only does the typical 123 grain bullet lose energy fast, it's accuracy decreases dramatically after about a hundred yards.
At 100 yards (and using stabilizing sand bag rests), I can make a pretty decent group (about the size of a half-dollar), but at 200 yards (and compensating for the big drop), the bullets are usually all over the place on the target sheet.
Just my experience.
That's what always struck me about the Geneva Conventions restrictions on ammo. Devised to hamper the most militant Empire of the day...Great Britain...by taking away their Dum Dum Arsenal ammo, the Conventions came about at a time when smokeless powders and spitzer bullets were pushing terminal performance past the magic 2400 fps mark that got jacketed bullets to start doing crazy things when they made contact.
There were also political reasons. For the most part it hampered Great Britain. Nobody made a fuss about Portugal's lead tipped ammo because Portugal didn't go around expanding an empire.
I don’t know anything about this new M4 that the troops are carrying, but the M16 has no prob reaching out and tagging someone in a lethal manner at 500 yards/meters.
This is probably more a matter of training failure than weapon ability.
I was wrong. My bad.
Gun Show man..Gun Show..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.