From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 01:05:18 -0500
Subject: Round II: Rifles
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:07:53 -0500 (EST) From: Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> Subject: Re: Rifle types > 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 Hmm. If I were fighting in Alberta on the flat with no air, arty, whatever to cover my advance, I'd agree. Studies have repeatedly shown most engagements are fought in the 300-500m range which is what the new weapons are designed for. Warfare is often NOT static and therefore these long range shots just don't happen so often. Not never, just not as often. > 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. ** I'd expect to see the Brit NCO get stung once. Then the next time he saw 2 Boers on the hillside, he'd call in Ortillery. Or he'd send his squad marksman to take them out. Or he'd get back inside his APC. I'm not saying BAs can't work, just that they poorly suit the most common situations in most terrain - gunfights at 100m-500m. > 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? ** Can't say as I have. Though I think the C7 was fairly durable. I wouldn't advise ANYONE to use a rifle as a hammer. That's why they invented bullets. While your BA guy might have to buttstroke me during close assault because his 8 round mag is empty, I still have 22 rounds or more to share with him. He winds up to buttstroke me, I shoot him. Actual HTH is such a rare occurence (close range gunfire being not as rare) that even a lot of SF don't bother with a terribly huge amount of formal HTH (unarmed or HTH weapons) training. Most close assaults use autofire and grenades. Not (again) that this never happens, but I'm not too worried. I also would have had a C7 Bayonet, and I think I'd rather use that than a buttstroke if I had the C7. I'm not denying your point, I just don't think it is that important in how you choose a rifle. Infanteers usually like more ammo. For the weight of carrying probably 80 rounds for an FN, I can probably carry 120-150 with a C7. THAT is a huge difference over time. I just question why the militia troopers normally have shorter ranged weapons according to canon rules... ** Or do they have shorter RB with the same weapons? What you are arguing for is the divorcing of marksmanship from unit quality. > The best troops to have nowdays are people carrying ARs with a mix of Why isn't every Rifle man trained? ** I meant as in "rifle team" or "low end sniper" qualified. Everyone is trained, but I've seen these "trained" soldiers introduced to real high end marksmanship by a sniper instructor and it is amazing what new truths they learn. Why isn't everyone? It would cost way too much. it represents a lot of extra training. not necessary. Ultimately this is quality vs. quantity. > 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. ** Since I mentioned the BA marksmen, it should have (I thought) been obvious I was referring to the standard squad weapon. NO ONE is using the BA as a primary arm. Any the reliability issue is going away with some of the modern semi-autos. They are as reliable as BA according to some organizations who use sniper weapons regularly - police, military, paramilitary. Though some purists still stick to the BA. > 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. ? Cut what? I think if you're talking about a company, I'd better have more than that. I deploy something like a GMS (point, click, and goodbye target) with an anti-personel warhead if I want to kill you out beyond rifle range. Or I call for my support. I'm sure I can construct equal scenarios where a force with bolt actions will be totally FUBAR. As a rule, modern forces do not use these weapons. All the men at Sandhurst, The Pentagon, n different national armies can't fail to know their business entirely. The AR isn't some sort of cruel hoax perpetrated on the military! It's a very effective weapons system that addresses the MOST COMMON stituations. Should you keep around some snipers with BA for longer ranged issues? Yes. Should you realize you're deploying guys with ARs into the desert where they'll be outranged by the locals? IF your intel is any good - obviously. Then you'd better have air, arty, or other techniques to compensate. The AR is not a do-anything-in-any-situation rifle, its only a trusty reliable weapon that delivers a high volume of fire, or allows a lot of longer ranged deliberate shots in the most common combat ranges in most terrains.