Re: Rifle types

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:

> 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. 

I don't own a Fisher Price Rifle yet, but I've been peering at the G36 
civilian model for a bit recently. I will say, yes, recoil of the larger

cartridges is a bit of a pain. (A brass butt plate on the back of a 8lb 
bolt rifle tends to hurt if you are of slight stature)

> 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 

> 
> 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

These kinds of volleys were hell on the germans in WWI. The level of 
marksmanship training of the old soldiers back in WWI and WWII (not post

BEF) was amazing. British soldiers in particular were expected to hit a 
target 15 times in 60 seconds at a significant distance (Called the Mad 
Minute). 

> 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. 

"Sergent, I can see a couple of guys way out there on the plain about a 
mile away..."
"Don't worry about them Corpral, did I ask you to sight see???! Get back

to that trench!"
*ZING!*
"Sergent!"

> 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? Don't do it too hard. There's a 
fellow on the Enfield list, he was in the military from the use of the 
Enfield, through the Change from the .303 bren to the 7.62 brens and the

SLRs, then saw the SA 80. Hates the SA 80. Now the Ausssies like that 
Augs. 

I just question why the militia troopers normally have shorter ranged 
weapons according to canon rules...

> 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?

> 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. 

> 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. 

> 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. 

yep, average squad in close terrain. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------