[Guest]

concealable (when disassembled) or that's not an autoloader, and isn't either 223 or .22lr, preferably both (as in an AR15, with the Ciener .22 conversion unit. The other stuff is too limited in use for me. I can always fit an upper in 7.62 x39, 300 Whisper, 50 bmg, 9mm,. .45, etc to the AR lower if I wish. So why should I limit myself to guns that are less versatile? Even if I had the money to waste on them, I dont have the time to spend on being adequately skilled with them, and I dont want to be bothered to secure, insure, and maintain them. I dont want more than 5 pistols, for the same reason, and one of those is to be cached, as are 2 of the 4 rifles (sks and Papoose Marlin)

It's far better to have one's "fun" with truly combat capable guns, and to build real skill with such, than to only have "sporting" guns, and someday have to fight with them. Or have both fighting and sporting guns, and be only half-skilled with the fighting guns.

 

[CAV]

If your intent is to become skilled and proficient with a particular firearm, why would you suggest changing calibers? While the basic weapon function is the same, the ballistic characteristics of each bullet size is completely different, requiring adjustments to sights, sight picture, shooting stance and aim points at known distances.

 

[Guest]

no it doesn't, really. the only way

that stuff enters into the picture, on a fighting gun, is if you are talking about head shots at ridiculously long ranges. I dont consider the other calibers to be meaninful. That's why I dont have any such. I just said that if I DID want to try other bs, I could do so, just by adding different upper receiver groups, without bothering with different guns. When you are fighting, guys aint stupid enough to just stand there, fully exposed to your fire. They are dodging, using cover, etc, and that makes a 200m hit mostly luck.

 

[CAV]

Hmmm......

that stuff enters into the picture, on a fighting gun, is if you are talking about head shots at ridiculously long ranges

Actually, it matters a great deal for any *aimed* shot. Standard, ironsight aimed fire at 300 meters is a required qualification distance for actual "fighting guns" fired by actual "fighting men/women". Who are you worried about shooting anyway?

 

[Guest]

that requirement is bogus on the face

of it. you aint going to GET stationary, fully exposed torsos to fire at, in a typical combat action, at any range. That's a sniper type situation, which is less than 1% of the rifle shooting in a war. Like I've said BEFORE, you aint IN the military. If you were, you wouldn't have any CHOICE but to use the M16 and the 223, and almost certainly, nothing but standard ball ammo, either.

Would YOU just stand there, fully exposed, while being shot-at? No?, Then WHY claim anyone else would do so, hmm? Get real, wake UP, man. Guys do LOTS of missing on torsos at 30m, much less 300m, and it's NOT because of changes of POI caused by the ammo. It's caused by flinching at the blast, fear, ducking incoming fire, trying to hit in the dark, on moving targets, guys ducking around cover, etc. THAT'S the reality of rifle combat, not your wet dream of having everyone be so stupid as to just stand there and be shot at.

 

[CAV]

1.

you aint IN the military

WRONG. 10 years and counting :smokin:


2.

If you were, you wouldn't have any CHOICE but to use the M16 and the 223

WRONG. Let see, the individually carried and fired weapons:
A) M249 - belt fed 5.56mm MG
B) M240 or M60 - belt fed 7.62mm MG
C) M9 - 9mm Pistol

The crew served weapons:
D) M2 - .50 cal HBMG
E) 120mm Mortar
F) 25mm - Bushmaster chain gun
G) 120mm Smoothbore tank cannon

Contrary to your misinformed opinions, I personally get to decide what weapons are used. That's the beauty of being the commander. With few exceptions, every one of my soldiers wer cross-training to operate most of the equipment listed above.


3.

you wouldn't have any CHOICE but standard ball ammo, either.

WRONG. Armor Piercing, Incendiary, High Explosive all come quickly to mind.


4.

Guys do LOTS of missing on torsos at 30m, much less 300m

Which is exactly why you train at every range from 3 to 300 meters. Oh and as an aside, we must engage troop targets at 1000+ meters with some of those weapons. (FWIW, 3km with the tank. I realize that isn't with a rifle but it makes my point)


5.

It's caused by flinching at the blast, fear, ducking incoming fire, trying to hit in the dark, on moving targets, guys ducking around cover, etc.

Yeah, but that works both ways and (so do bullets).


6.

not having everyone be so stupid as to just stand there and be shot at.

What war should I start with? Try turning off the reruns and start watching the History Channel every now and then. Every hear of Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Stalingrad, Meuse-Argonne, Cold Harbor, Antetiam, Gettysburg, Concord, Austerlitz? Hundreds of thousands of real combatant have "just stood there" and died where they stood.


7.

THAT'S the reality of rifle combat

Really? What's your experience to base this on?

 

[Guest]

bs, and more bs. In EVERY fight, the

guys DODGE, and use cover. they do NOT just stand there, fully exposed, waiting to be shot, and only an idiot would make such an argument. I can EASILY prove that you CAN'T hit a doging torso at 200m, except by luck. Ditto a head that is moved back behind cover (at 200m) as often as any reasonable man would do so.

LUCK is 50-50 performance (or worse) on an issue where there are two possible outcomes (like hit or miss) or like heads or tails on a coin toss. You CAN'T get 6 hits for 10 shots on a dodging man at 200m. I can prove it. I will bet big money on this. NOONE can do so, with any rifle, from any sort of field firing positon. It's every bit as safe a bet as saying you can't run a mile in 3 minutes, ya see.

 

[CAV]

Once again, I must disagree

Please stick to one coherent ideal in this discussion. When pinned down on a point you shift your focus to an unrelated topic.

There is not a single response that argues the fact that training individuals will attempt to use cover when subjected to fire. I have yet to disagreed with you on that point. However, I stated that training should incorporate the engagement of targets at various ranges. I will try another way:

In a tactical situation, would you simply run straight into the aimed fire of your opponent? Only if you have a death wish. As you move forward you would stop, assume a stabile firing platform and engage the target with well-aimed shots (hopefully from behind cover if it was available). Using this as a valid assumption (since it is tactically sound), sooner or later you will be stopped and presenting your opponent with a stationary target. If he is in a tactical position with cover and/or concealment then you will likely be hit during such an exchange.


Just because YOU may not be able to hit a target at 200m doesn't mean that a trained and practiced shooter can't. Why would I waste a single round on a target moving at 200ms?? Answer: I wouldn't. I'd choose to wait for a shot on a stationary shooter that is achievable and tactically sound. I'd suggest that your accuracy would be greatly improved if you would stop the continued practice of out swapping receivers and calibers and stick to single weapon and round.....Practice, Practice, Practice.

Proof:
The only thing you could prove to me on a range is that you aren't proficient enough to hit a target at 200m. No one can hit 6 of 10 shots at 200 meters?? I (and anyone reading this post that ever served in the military) can testify that such a feat occurs hundreds of times a day throughout the services. It is actually below the standard. I can hit a pop up target (which replicates a target popping up to fire from a covered position, BTW) at 300m, with standard sights 9 out of every 10 trys. Bragging? Nope, I am REQUIRED to do it twice a year. Luck? Nope, it's a learned skill developed from repetition on the range.

Now, why don't you stop pushing a subject that you aren't informed enough to defend? This is the last post that I will make on this thread.

 

[anodes]

Please stick to one coherent ideal in this discussion. When pinned down on a point you shift your focus to an unrelated topic.

CAV, That will be the day for this one!
anodes.

 

[G-lock]

Cav:

Your weapons list reminds me of the good old days...are you in Bradleys?

Boom.....Boom boom boom......boom boom boom

 

[CAV]

Yeap

Brads and tanks. That's where CAV comes from. :beer:

 

[G-lock]

I lived in the back of those for 3 years. (11M). I'd always wore my black PT cap under my Kevlar and as soon as that ramp clicked shut, that cap was rolled down, and I was out until I heard "dismount right" "dismount right" (or left). It sure beat walking . The only bad part is that now I sleep through everything! Alarms, phone calls, etc. I'm lucky my wife is a light sleeper.

 

[CAV]

Dismount conversation

Scout 1: "I wonder what's going on out there?"

Scout 2: " I don't know. Shut up and deal."


Slept through most of a ROK tour in a Brad. The back is much more comfortable than the turret floor.

 

[G-lock]

Re: Dismount conversation

Scout 1: "I wonder what's going on out there?"

Scout 2: " I don't know. Shut up and deal."

Immediately followed by, "How many you got, P?"

LOL. Too true.

People are giving me funny looks...I'm still laughing. I had forgotten about all those games of Spades we played.

 

[Guest]

stationary for a second or so, in PRONE

that means a 10" circle as a target, not a full frontal target. You aint going to hit such a disk, at 300m, in 2 seconds or so, except by luck, either, especially while ducking incoming fire and having your ears blown out by your own noise. I aint charging ANYTHING, for any reason, against rifle fire.so what' I'd do is irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

NOBODY is going to reliably hit dodging

men at more than 200m. I have $5000 that I will bet on this any time, any rifle, any field firing position. I will be in a pit, holding the target overhead, on a hunk of conduit. on signal, I will start doing what I'd do if I was being shot at. You fire 10 rds, if you dont get 6 hits, you lose. When you want to LOSE $5000?

 

[Aslan]

Give it up, you've been shown to be wrong every single time.

Now you're repeating the same crap at what appears to be a decent board.

Of course if you're just going to spread your crap here, it will just go down hill.

The man said it was against pop up targets.

Hardrock, Wraith and others have pointed out that hitting movers is simply a matter of training.

You have more or less admitted you can't hit 200m without a bipod and that even then you're happy with large groups.

People hit moving targets all the time:

Hunters, Archers, infantry, etc.

You seem to be the only one who thinks that only a stationary target can be hit.

Go peddle your crap elsewhere.

 

[jamullins]

wow, no one just stands there huh?that's how i got shot while talking on the radio, hmmmmmm. Sometimes you do what has to be done, the rest of the time you just figure out what it is that has to be done. Combat is just that way. Plan, train, educate, prepare, equip, so oj and so forth because in the end those statistics are still true, but you don't want to make it any easier to become one.

 

[dthomas]

In the Marine Corps they have something called a Dog target. It is a representation of a man in the PRONE position at 300m. Head and shoulders that's it. As part of our qualification, we shot that target with ten rounds, rapid fire, in one minute. This included a mag exchange during that minute. And guess what, most everyone put all 10 rounds in the black. So wow, I guess that means we can shoot an enemy firing from cover and prone.

It's not "luck" as you put it, but damn good training. Gotta love these non-military arm chair quarter back know it alls. lol

SEMPER FI

 

[jamullins]

why shoot at a 200m advancing target that is moving through cover and concealment, simple, to try and kill him, odds are against a hit of course, but if you don't fire on him while he is in range then when do you fire. let him waltz up 50m away and then try. Hell no, make him work for every meter, if he gets the opprotunitty to choose his ground as he advances he is forcing the fight on you. it's like being flanked, if you let someone maneuver on you instead of the other wa around he is controling the 'flow' of the battle. this is important becuase what will ultimately happen in a real fihgt is that the side that shows control will typically be the side that takes the ground becuase the side who can't control the fight will begin to feel the fight going against them and will feel compelled to withdraw before they become stuck in an untennable position. Having casualties inflicted only makes the feeling of losing control of the fight become more pronounced. Remember fights are fought with the hands, but won with the mind. or so sayeth a learned roman scholar and soldier