Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One method of battlefield effectiveness could be any field of fire course where a shooter must engage various targets at various distances within a certain amount of time, then do the similar thing in a shoot house. Since war doesn't happen only at specific distances, all these distances must be taken into account.I may be wrong (I'm old and my recollection is poor), but I thought I saw something that said most battlefield casualties are the result of bombs, artillery and mortars, and not small arms fire. If that's the case, how do we judge the battle field effectiveness of semi-auto versus bolt action rifles. Is it a question of convincing troops that a semi-auto gives them an advantage on the battle field versus a bolt action rifle? Is it a failure to spend the time to train decent marksmanship under fire? I don't know. For my part, I'm in a decently defensible position. My job is to convince anyone seeking my stuff, if the SHTF, that there are softer targets. I figure that dropping perps at 200 plus yards with my bolt action rifle might do the job.
When the people who kill other people from very VERY far away use more gas guns then bolt guns, I'll agree. But only after the majority of hunters also replace theirs. Oh, and top level bench rest shooters.
I'll change my statement a bit after actually watching the video. In the context they stated, if everyone else has an automatic, you are definitely at a disadvantage within a couple hundred yards and everyone is trying to kill everyone else. It was an interesting point they made that the sand people used British enfields just long enough to pick up an AK and now it seems they used those just long enough to be given an M4...... so is it an advantage to have repeating fire? Yes. Is the bolt gun obsolete? Still no.
A "classic", as much as a three year old video can be, from In Range TV:
Within the parameters they are talking about: agree or disagree?
Exactly, and they did address this, talking about how the M1 was such a vast improvement. They even said that though the venerable M1 is militarily obsolete, and has been for a very long time, it could still hold it's own on the battlefield even today.General issue for troops? No, that's why the Garand was so highly thought of.
If I was to go with grenades, I would want a launcher. Hand thrown grenades - I don't think would be that useful for me; I would not be working in CQB/etc., and because of injuries, I simply could not throw them far enough except in CQB scenarios - I would stay out of urban situations too. But yes, grenades with a launcher would be nice. About the only time I would be able to get them and afford them though, would be in an extreme WROL/SHTF scenario, and if it ever gets that serious, I probably would not survive long enough either.The video touched on the use of grenades too. Having an offensive/defensive tool that doesn't require line of sight is a massive difference from the fantasy civilian combat that most on this thread are postulating about.
I'm pretty dangerous with a bar towelThe guys are right, bolt guns are obsolete. However they are still dangerous in a good man's hands.
You best watch your backside in the shower room!I'm pretty dangerous with a bar towel