The range comparisons in the linked article look to be way off.

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?

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.

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.

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.....

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?