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.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Hmmm......
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?
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?
G
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.
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.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.
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.
CAV, That will be the day for this one!
anodes.
Cav:
Your weapons list reminds me of the good old days...are you in Bradleys?
Boom.....Boom boom boom......boom boom boom
Your weapons list reminds me of the good old days...are you in Bradleys?
Boom.....Boom boom boom......boom boom boom
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.
. The only bad part is that now I sleep through everything! Alarms, phone calls, etc. I'm lucky my wife is a light sleeper.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.
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.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
