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
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!

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
the
> volume of fire - there are a number of reasons the modern military has
gone

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
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...

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
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

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
> 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.

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
strictly to
> engage in close assaults and in this case more FP, more suppression,
more

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash, Army of Darkness

Homepage: http:\\fox.ntsn.ca\~kaladorn\index.html
ICQ: 58316640 (Tomin8tor)

"Ah. I see. Inform me if there is any change in his condition."
<hangs up the phone>
"How is he?"
"He's dead."
-- The movie Top Secret