I have to take issue with something Ryan said. At least IME.
You commented that effective ranges tend to go down from the Battle Rifle to
the Assault Rifle. I don't really agree. Max ranges, yes. Effective...hmmm.
In the CF, The FN was built heavy. Many couldn't hold it in the standing or
even sitting or kneeling terribly comfortably and that affected marksmanship.
As did recoil. Especially in the hands of slighter soldiers or many female
marksmen. It could be effective out to long distances (1200m I'd guess) but
"effective range" is a more limited concept embodying what range you might hit
what you are shooting at. I'd more likely call that 500m.
When we shifted to the C9, many folk who were "so so" marksmen at
300-500m
suddenly became good shots. The lighter weight, the lighter recoil -
these contributed to make excellent shots out of people who used to do far
worse with an FN. A C7 can hit quite effectively out to 500m, and I'd call its
effective range in the hands of many people not that different from the FNs.
Maximum ranges, yes. Effective range... within 100m of the FN at the least.
And probably more accurate in the 300-500m range!
And as for the idea of a gun sighted out to 2400m, Gunny Hathcock or Sgt.
Waldron would have been hard pressed to make those kind of shots as an aimed
shot. They were volley fire sights I realize, and volley fire may have been
effective a fair distance, especially with .30-06 or .303. But you can't
carry as much ammo, and if you are swarmed close in, you don't have the
volume of fire - there are a number of reasons the modern military has
gone to ARs. And the AR also tends to be lighter. As a grunt who has humped an
FN, the C7 was a quantum leap. (Though the FN is a damn fine weapon). About
the only problems with the C7 I saw were complexity of parts (more parts to
lose) and the CF's tendency to reuse disposable mags...
The best troops to have nowdays are people carrying ARs with a mix of a few
dedicated marksman weapons for those with talent. Up close the ARs and SAWs
punch out a lot of FP to allow crushing assaults, but they are also accurate
out to 500m in the hands of a trained shooter. And for those times you need a
little more range, bring the GPMG along and the guy with the.308
match-grade weapon mated to some zoomie sights. I don't think Bolt
Action weapons would hold up on the modern battlefield. No one seems to be
using them (cept those that can't afford to replace them) as a main arm, so I
must conclude the idea proved less than optimal.
Infantry tactics many times now days involve IFVs and debarking strictly to
engage in close assaults and in this case more FP, more suppression, more
rounds downrange do play a big role in putting together a violent assault.
There are places for Battle Rifles, Marksman Rifles (BA), and GPMGs. But the
average squad is better off with ARs, SAWs, and a GL or two.
YMMV. OVW.:)
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> I have to take issue with something Ryan said. At least IME.
Effective...hmmm.
> In the CF, The FN was built heavy. Many couldn't hold it in the
I don't own a Fisher Price Rifle yet, but I've been peering at the G36
civilian model for a bit recently. I will say, yes, recoil of the larger
cartridges is a bit of a pain. (A brass butt plate on the back of a 8lb bolt
rifle tends to hurt if you are of slight stature)
> When we shifted to the C9, many folk who were "so so" marksmen at
But, if I were to take two squads kit one out with large bolt actions and the
other with M16s, stick them on a large open plain. Guess who wins. Its all
about the environment. When you are working in close environs, a
light cartridge is ideal. (hence the new FN 5.7mm round) However, I was
speaking
> And as for the idea of a gun sighted out to 2400m, Gunny Hathcock or
These kinds of volleys were hell on the germans in WWI. The level of
marksmanship training of the old soldiers back in WWI and WWII (not post
BEF) was amazing. British soldiers in particular were expected to hit a target
15 times in 60 seconds at a significant distance (Called the Mad Minute).
> carry as much ammo, and if you are swarmed close in, you don't have
On a primitive world where a militia unit is trudgeing around with Bolt Rifles
and has spent their entire life with that rifle, I'd expect to see similar
results that the british encountered when fighting the Boers. I'd expect them
to be more spartan but still have some decent transport. A jeep can carry a
lot of.303. So can a wagon.
"Sergent, I can see a couple of guys way out there on the plain about a mile
away..." "Don't worry about them Corpral, did I ask you to sight see???! Get
back
to that trench!"
*ZING!*
"Sergent!"
> to ARs. And the AR also tends to be lighter. As a grunt who has humped
About
> the only problems with the C7 I saw were complexity of parts (more
Ever butstroke someone with the AR? Don't do it too hard. There's a fellow on
the Enfield list, he was in the military from the use of the Enfield, through
the Change from the.303 bren to the 7.62 brens and the
SLRs, then saw the SA 80. Hates the SA 80. Now the Ausssies like that Augs.
I just question why the militia troopers normally have shorter ranged weapons
according to canon rules...
> The best troops to have nowdays are people carrying ARs with a mix of
Why isn't every Rifle man trained?
> a little more range, bring the GPMG along and the guy with the .308
Last I checked the sniper weapon of the US and British armies were bolt
actions. A Bolt Action is far more reliable and solid than most actions.
I think the only really accurate semi-auto action is the PSG-1. Still I
think benchresters use only boltactions.
> Infantry tactics many times now days involve IFVs and debarking
What happens in the desert if you are the company of troops sent down to
that planet to execute a mission. If you are in the open terrain and all
you have are close assault weapons? 5 GPMGs are not going to cut it.
> There are places for Battle Rifles, Marksman Rifles (BA), and GPMGs.
But the
> average squad is better off with ARs, SAWs, and a GL or two.
yep, average squad in close terrain.
In a message dated 1/26/00 8:17:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
> Ever butstroke someone with the AR? Don't do it too hard. There's a
> Augs.
Back in Basic Training in '82, the close combat instructors mentioned that if
we butt stroked with the M-16A1, we might end up with the most expensive
clubs in the world. They recommend the use of the entrenching tool for that
sort of stuff...
> I just question why the militia troopers normally have shorter ranged
> weapons according to canon rules...
Since MOST militia are assumed to be troops that don't get to use firearms
much, I think it is their competency with the weapons that limits militia
range more so than the equipment. I generally don't call folks that are used
to firearms (and really good at using them) militia in game terms, no matter
what their "actual" title.
I do have to mention that the.303 volley fire was generally against troops in
what would now be considered pretty close formation, so I'm not sure that you
could call it the equivalent of an MG. Modern formations are much more
dispersed and a volley fired by BA-armed troops 1200 meters away will
tend to
be pretty ineffective, I think--though it might make a fellow keep his
head down.
And the M-16A2 is supposedly not bad in the long range accuracy
department (well, 800 yards anyway) either. I can't say from personal
experience, as mine is limited to the A1 (with which I averaged better than
90% in the black at 500 yards on the Marine rifle range).
Rob
A few comments...
Volley fire with bolt action rifles can have a machinegun effect, but it
requires a platoon (WWI size, about 50 rifles) to do it. The men behind the
rifles could not be dispersed if any sort command and control were to be
exercised (neccessary to pick out on target give it machine gun like volley's
of fire).
The quality of militia will be directly related to where they are from. If
they live in a nice safe enviroment or urban area (the police must protect me,
right?), they will have little knowledge or practice with weapons. If they
come form a rural area (it will take hours for the police to show up to deal
with the problem) with life threatening predators (as in crocodiles, lions,
bears, etc. deffinately not Aliens aka the movies), then they will use weapons
as a tool in
everyday life and be very proficient with them... In my FT/DSII/Stellar
Conquest rules militia quality related to the habitability of the planet, the
more habitable, the lower the quality...
The US military is working on a "super weapon" again. It's as bad if not worse
than SPIW. Those troops better start doing a lot of push up, because a 15
pound weapon system with 5.56 assault rifle, 20 mm grenade launcher, and very
exotic
targeting computer/sight is coming... I wonder what it is going to do
to all of those good shots withs experience on light weight rifles...
As to which is better, a light AR or a heavy BR, it mostly depends on who you
are fighting. How much damage do you need to do "neutralize hostile
aggression?" If it is a human, 5.56 is fine, as long as he is not on druggs...
If it is an alien species? If it is an alien species on druggs??? The make
even stronger, a lot of police departments are skeptical about the 5.7mm FN
P90. Police can expect to have to deal with people on druggs, militaries can
expect the opposite (but not always...).
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 RWHofrich@aol.com wrote:
> Back in Basic Training in '82, the close combat instructors mentioned
That is the reason the M16s are termed the Fisher Price Rifle.
> Since MOST militia are assumed to be troops that don't get to use
Ahh, So yokals with their long rifles out on the plains of New Dresden should
expect to not be termed as militia by the FSE forces when they show. I can
deal with that...
> I do have to mention that the .303 volley fire was generally against
Well, it had a beaten zone just like MG fire does. MG fire was also used
in that form for the better half of this century at long range. Ever hear
about the use of the MG company at the Somme, 1,000,000 rounds of ammo for 10
hours, by 10 MGs. Thats a lot of ammo, barrel changes and water for the
cooling jackets...
> dispersed and a volley fired by BA-armed troops 1200 meters away will
True, it all depends on the situation and terrian. True.
> And the M-16A2 is supposedly not bad in the long range accuracy
But what sort of energy does the round retain at the end of that 800 yards.
Probably not much.
In a message dated 1/27/00 2:27:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
> But what sort of energy does the round retain at the end of that 800
I read an early report on the SS109 round that claimed complete penetration of
a standard M1 steel pot at 800 yards. Don't know if it's true, but if it is,
I'd say the round carried enough energy to do a bit of damage to a human.
Rob
Your source is pretty much correct on that. The SS109 round is referenced at
acheiving this. It does need to be fired from a weapon with a barrel rifled
with a tighter twist (the stat escapes me at the moment). The F88 Austyer is
rifled for this but teh old M16 isn't so whilst can fire the same round
doesn't benefit from added penetration.
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----