Re: 338 Norma Magnum
I recall a quote, something to the effect of "Only Accurate rifles are interesting". With the 1500 meter specs on the PSR program, along with the above paraphrase, the shooting world is interested! Nothing wrong with that. Let the best rifle win, plain and simple. Regarding the statement on Tactical rifles, I disagree with the statement. Thru history, those rifles qualified as "tactical" have always held the spotlight. Why? Well, let's define "tactical" and let's define "battle", and let's define "conscript".
Tactical rifle: Must be a tough rifle, able to withstand really bad conditions. Must be a rifle that the owner can stake his life on it's ability. The cartridge must provide sufficient energy to kill those who are wanting to kill him. The rifle must be capable of allowing the shooter to engauge in any form of "touching"(tactic) the enemy. The better it assists the shooter in touching the enemy, the higher it's score in the "tactical" department.
Battle rifle: Must be a tough rifle, able to withstand really bad conditions. A battle rifle however, I think we'd all classify as "issued" to the masses of soldiers. Cookie cutter, everybody gets one, it shoots a projectile. Noone would expect a "battle" rifle to have all the same qualities as a "tactical" rifle. A battle rifle would be best suited as a weapon capable of high volumes of fire, and accurate enough for "minute of enemy" at common/maximum engagement distances of ~ 300 yards.
Conscript: A civilian drafted into immediate military service. Little training, and must therefore have equipment in accords with his skills. Rifle must be simple, must be "conscript" proof. A conscript would neither have need nor skill to employ a tactical long range sniper rifle. The conscript would be issued a battle rifle, and just enought skill to maybe use it. Much of the commonly issued material to soldiers around the world complies with the "conscript" method. After all, for a country to purchase millions of the "same" small caliber carbine, pistol, gas mask, tent, canteen, compass, they must assume that "conscripts" might be needed to fill the ranks. Those same conscripts must quickly become an effective fighting force. How? By issuing simple equipment with little need for training.
Sooooo, why are these long range tactical rifles interesting? Well, they'll take training to employ, they're super accurate, and they'll be able to do things at 1 mile that both Hatcher and McBride had only envisioned.
Todays US soldiers are better trained than any other fighting force in the world. They are not conscripts, they deserve excellent equipment and the training to employ it. (sidenote) That's why it pisses me off so much that we're again talking about gays in the military, instead of spending time/money on equipment and training. Thank you big O! Here's an idea. Get all the gays in, train them to a conscript level, then put them up against the French army. Let's see who wins.
I should not have said that....
I recall a quote, something to the effect of "Only Accurate rifles are interesting". With the 1500 meter specs on the PSR program, along with the above paraphrase, the shooting world is interested! Nothing wrong with that. Let the best rifle win, plain and simple. Regarding the statement on Tactical rifles, I disagree with the statement. Thru history, those rifles qualified as "tactical" have always held the spotlight. Why? Well, let's define "tactical" and let's define "battle", and let's define "conscript".
Tactical rifle: Must be a tough rifle, able to withstand really bad conditions. Must be a rifle that the owner can stake his life on it's ability. The cartridge must provide sufficient energy to kill those who are wanting to kill him. The rifle must be capable of allowing the shooter to engauge in any form of "touching"(tactic) the enemy. The better it assists the shooter in touching the enemy, the higher it's score in the "tactical" department.
Battle rifle: Must be a tough rifle, able to withstand really bad conditions. A battle rifle however, I think we'd all classify as "issued" to the masses of soldiers. Cookie cutter, everybody gets one, it shoots a projectile. Noone would expect a "battle" rifle to have all the same qualities as a "tactical" rifle. A battle rifle would be best suited as a weapon capable of high volumes of fire, and accurate enough for "minute of enemy" at common/maximum engagement distances of ~ 300 yards.
Conscript: A civilian drafted into immediate military service. Little training, and must therefore have equipment in accords with his skills. Rifle must be simple, must be "conscript" proof. A conscript would neither have need nor skill to employ a tactical long range sniper rifle. The conscript would be issued a battle rifle, and just enought skill to maybe use it. Much of the commonly issued material to soldiers around the world complies with the "conscript" method. After all, for a country to purchase millions of the "same" small caliber carbine, pistol, gas mask, tent, canteen, compass, they must assume that "conscripts" might be needed to fill the ranks. Those same conscripts must quickly become an effective fighting force. How? By issuing simple equipment with little need for training.
Sooooo, why are these long range tactical rifles interesting? Well, they'll take training to employ, they're super accurate, and they'll be able to do things at 1 mile that both Hatcher and McBride had only envisioned.
Todays US soldiers are better trained than any other fighting force in the world. They are not conscripts, they deserve excellent equipment and the training to employ it. (sidenote) That's why it pisses me off so much that we're again talking about gays in the military, instead of spending time/money on equipment and training. Thank you big O! Here's an idea. Get all the gays in, train them to a conscript level, then put them up against the French army. Let's see who wins.
I should not have said that....
