Rifle types

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. :)

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008