SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    "FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION: A Brief Look at U.S. Army Standard Service Rifles and Squad Automatic Weapons since WWII"
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
"FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION: A Brief Look at U.S. Army Standard Service Rifles and Squad Automatic Weapons since WWII" Login/Join 
Member
posted
 
Posts: 15899 | Location: Eastern Iowa | Registered: May 21, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Age Quod Agis
Picture of ArtieS
posted Hide Post
The range comparisons in the linked article look to be way off.



"I vowed to myself to fight against evil more completely and more wholeheartedly than I ever did before. . . . That’s the only way to pay back part of that vast debt, to live up to and try to fulfill that tremendous obligation."

Alfred Hornik, Sunday, December 2, 1945 to his family, on his continuing duty to others for surviving WW II.
 
Posts: 12748 | Location: Central Florida | Registered: November 02, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
:^)
Picture of BillyBonesNY
posted Hide Post
I think the fellow is too focused on caliber/platform.

What has always driven the above is battlefield conditions, tactics and logistics.

Odd that the p17 was nary mentioned, though caliber and affect is arguably the same as the 1903.

The para SAW wasn’t mentioned either, SAW wouldn’t be a go to for room clearing, it is useful for longer distances in CQBR.

In the end, caliber wise which war are we preparing for, the past insurgencies or a mix-up with regular forces?


----------------------------------------
http://lonesurvivorfoundation.org
 
Posts: 7177 | Registered: March 19, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BillyBonesNY:
Odd that the p17 was nary mentioned, though caliber and affect is arguably the same as the 1903.


Not really that surprising, considering the M1917 is frequently overlooked during discussions of US service rifles, despite the fact that 2/3rds of all US soldiers fighting during WW1 were armed with M1917s, and they continued in (limited) use through WW2.

However, in this case, it's a little more understandable, considering it's primarily a discussion of US small arms after WW2, and even the M1903 only gets a passing mention.
 
Posts: 32429 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
fugitive from reality
Picture of SgtGold
posted Hide Post
That was a poorly written article with incorect informatio presented as scientific fact. The fact that they illustrate the M249 as having a 2,400 meter range is so laughable that it renders the entire article as moot as far as I'm concerned.


_____________________________
'I'm pretty fly for a white guy'.

 
Posts: 7069 | Location: Newyorkistan | Registered: March 28, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Purveyor of Death
and Destruction
Picture of walker77
posted Hide Post
There is no way the M-14 weights the same as the M-16.

And the M-16 has greater distance than the M-14? Come on..... Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 7389 | Location: Raymore, Missouri | Registered: June 24, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
You have cow?
I lift cow!
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SgtGold:
That was a poorly written article with incorect informatio presented as scientific fact. The fact that they illustrate the M249 as having a 2,400 meter range is so laughable that it renders the entire article as moot as far as I'm concerned.


Yeah What's this guy smokin?


------------------------------
http://defendersoffreedom.us/
 
Posts: 6957 | Location: Bay Area | Registered: December 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    "FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION: A Brief Look at U.S. Army Standard Service Rifles and Squad Automatic Weapons since WWII"

© SIGforum 2024