If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
At The Mercy Of Bad Gun Laws ~~ England, Unsafe, Insecure, Badly Armed!
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.thisisbristol.com/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=91146&command=displayContent&sourceNode=86447&contentPK=2083954
One of the problems of having a disarmed citizenry is a lack of input, meaningful input, from a shooting public in developing weapons for military and the protection of the ol pirate kingdom...honestly folks, you just aren't safe...or protected...it is an illusion
:eek:
One of the problems of having a disarmed citizenry is a lack of input, meaningful input, from a shooting public in developing weapons for military and the protection of the ol pirate kingdom...honestly folks, you just aren't safe...or protected...it is an illusion
:eek:
0
Comments
Reminds me of a FUBAR issue 35 years ago, in another place, not all that distant (relatively) from were this issue eminates... :eek:
This is an absolute disgrace, to be honest. We cannot expect our troops to do an effective job with a rifle that isn't reliable. Hardly surprising taht the SAS choose to use an alternative weapon...
and guess which?
I don't understand why hechler and koch couldn't make a better rifle, we do own them after all.
BTW : I've decided to stop saying "america needs better gun control" because i've realised that i don't understand the culture and citizenry nearly well enough to make that kind of judgement.
M-16 is HARDLY a low maintenance weapon. Treating it as one would an AK-47/74 would enable the end-user to become a KIA stat...
Operative issue was using a smaller caliber to lessen the weight of the rifle, the combat load of ammo, and allow more ammo to be carried. Accuracy was deemed more important than reliability. Close tolerances in building make it a more precise rifle, but also less tolerant of fouling by sand/dirt/debris.
Problem is that most weapons systems are not designed/developed by those who must use them, just as cars are not designed by those who must repair/maintain them. We get situations where the designers "out-trick" themselves, and that wastes the lives of those who must use the brain-fart design in combat.
Personally, I have no problem with the FAL... and I own a couple. I have no real problem with the Kalishnikov system, and I own several AK's. I prefered the M-14 main battle rifle to the M-16 assault rifle, but others found a problem with the weight.
I DO have a problem with those who want to put all of these trick electronic contrivances on the rifle, including a color TV monitor... :rolleyes:
More careful assmbley of an AK can take care of the accuracy issue, without compromising the reliability. Diesel can tell you that I have built a particular AK which has cured several of the design ergo problems... and I am just an old "end-user", not a "design specialist"...
Personally, I believe that an FAL with a smaller caliber, built using lighter components and receivers bears merit... or training combatants to carry/fight with the weapons that us "olde farts" used to deal with, rather than the weenie weapons issued to them now. The FAL is still use in many areas of the world, and the 7.62x51 cartridge has many tactical advantages to the smaller/lighter rounds now prefered...
YO! DIESEL! ~ didja hear that? :rolleyes:
We ain't a gonna compare notes no mo'... :eek:
It's upsettin' ta "them"...
Why?
I can understand a colour tv monitor being a bit excessive, but a battle sight with electronic capability would provide a lot more accuracy than the mark 1 eyeball, surely?
Something providing a similar system to the HUD that pilots use, so glowing outlines around moving targets, tracer lines that show the direction of movement.
Or thermal imaging of the sort that firefighters and police use?
A colour monitor would be excessive and useless, however we have the technology to incorporate thermal imaging devices into relatively small equipment. Just a thought.
The reality of combat is rather different than the delusion of the testing lab, which is why the M-16 was issued en masse prior to its having been sorted out. It cost many Marines their lives...
Things that work within the test lab, within the imagination, are generally fragile in combat, including electronic contrivances. They break, and then you either have a HIGHLY inaccurate weapon, or a light and ineffective club. Newer assault rifle design lends itself neither to bayonettes or buttstrokes, and the bullpup design is of no more value in REAL combat than a wetdream...
Again... it goes back to those who actually must USE the weapon in the designated manner who should have a greater input, and not those who are isolated from the reality...
and btw... police "engagements" are NOTHING like military engagements: different ROE, different tactics, different conditions, and usually, over much quicker for the police than the military who spend weeks/months engaged, rather than hours...
Snipers employ scopes, but line grunts never should/will. I have optics on most of my weapons, but I am not longer a grunt.
What works in specialized groups is not the same as what works in grunt units.
Simpler is better, because it will still function after all of the trick shit has stop working. THAT realization is one of the many differences between civilians and military...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can take my word on this one, or make a fool of yourself.
Most police would not survive a tour in combat. They are not fit enough.
Police weapons would not withstand the brutal rigors of combat. They are not tough enough.
The weapons/personal are in NO way similar...
<b>
YO! DIESEL! ~ didja hear that?
We ain't a gonna compare notes no mo'...
It's upsettin' ta "them"...
</b>
I'm guessing (think i read someplace) one or both of you have been servicemen, or at least recieved some specailist training in firearms?
so if the original comment was changed from
<b>...is a lack of input, meaningful input, from a shooting public in developing weapons for military and the protection of the ol pirate kingdom
</b>
to
...is a lack of input, meaningful input, from <i>trained military personel </i> in developing weapons for military and the protection of the ol pirate kingdom
I may have been more inclined to agree.
The US "rabble" posting at TheSite represents US Special Forces, Navy Seals, Marines, US Army, armor, line grunts, officers and enlisted.
Yeah... there IS a little experience and training there...
{edit} btw... also represents quite a bit of actual combat, also.
Whatever I think of your opinions, you've demonstrated your prepared to kill or die to protect something you consider right.
It also means I'm not longer considering you a random gun nut.
Now i consider you a random gun nut that i'm nice to...
To add to what the Marines have already pointed out...
batteries are heavy and they run out. I want as little as possible that relies on batteries and doesn't have a backup...
I backup my NVGs with the mark 1 eyeball and a variety of florescent tape and dials...
I backup my GPS receiver with an old-fashioned map and magnetic compass...
I backup my strobe with chemlites...
I backup my radio with other radios and with other signaling devices, including panels and smoke...
Makes for a whole lot of weight to carry...and all because of batteries....
Thta should read "a well armed sociopath that I am nice to"
I'm interested to read Whowhere comments about imaging a shit like that but basically, I was under the impression that most soldiers would rather have a reliable, accurate weapon that techno crap...
Greehat's comments back up something a friend of mine (yes ex-forces) said about technology "Its great, but why can't they also develop lighter batteries?"
This isn't to say that high-tech wizardry doesn't have a role to play -- it most certainly does. But when you're considering specs for a main weapon, be it a rifle, a grenade or a tank, bear in mind the twin mottoes of
"Keep It Simple, Stupid"
and
"Too Many Cooks Spoil The Broth"
I've run around in fields doing the closest thing to real field manoeuvres cadets in this country get to do, with the single-shot version of the SA-80 and blanks in the magazine. Yes, it did occur to me that the unit didn't look as solid as it could have done. I've fired it on the range, and it's way too easy to jam. And the battle sight (two bits of metal with a single small hole in each, one a couple of feet in front of the other) will do nicely, thanks, Scotty. No wizardry necessary.
Why didn't Thanatos answer with this instead of simply saying it wouldn't be possible, and I had to take his word for it. It was, I believe a good question, all it needed was a good answer.
As for police weapons, I thought SWAT teams in the USA used M16's? In the UK they use MP5's which are a globally respected weapon.
Now... imagine that the enemy is shooting at you, and doing their best to kill you. Up the ante... if it jambs, you die.
If the optics break, you die.
If any of those fragile electronic contrivances malfunction, you die.
{NOT directed at you, MacKenZie
All that shit weighs you down, and WEARS you down. Hump that 80 to 140 pounds day after day, and ask yourself exactly how damned effective you are going to be when you are fighting for your life?
{AGAIN... not directed at you, MacKenZie
No matter how they might delude themselves - what with their preference to wearing ninja ballaklava's and BDU's and all - SWAT are NOT the same as army line grunts, Marines, Rangers, Seals, or Special Forces. Just because it works in a civilian setting, does NOT mean that it will function in a combat setting.
Just because 15 year old girls can kick around a soccer ball does NOT mean that they can compete against men in the world cup.
Just because MP-5's work within a limited and structured setting, does NOT mean that I would entrust my life to one in a combat situation. Personally, I want a rifle with some real legs under it, like a 7.62x51. :rolleyes:
btw... The muj did a pretty fair job with their .303 Enfields against the Russians with their AK-74's... They learned to exploit a tactical advantage, and all that trick bullshit did not overwhelm the archaic weaponry of the muj...
The answer you got from me was on the same level as your comments... if you desire an intelligent exchange, you should do enough research to elevate yourself from your state of ignorance. When you speculate/pontificate from that perspective of ignorance, you will not be taken seriously, because you demonstrate you have not the requisite basis to comprehend the answer...
If I'm not mistaken, it was because they didn't know how to use it. Nor how to take care of it.
You get dirt or water in that thing, you're screwed.
But that goes with any weapon. You take care of it, you clean it. You don't throw it around. It literally is your baby, your second skin...you learn it inside and out and what makes it tick.
If you don't, then no weapon you ever handle will ever be an effective one.
Whowhere, having electronic sites on a rifle can be a bad idea. As Thanatos said, it can easily be broken. Life in the field is hard. You are not on your feet all the time, you are either crawling or rolling, whatever.
But also not having an electronic site and just using *the eyeball technique* forces you to learn your weapon and what it takes to aim at a target. If you didn't learn to become one with your weapon and then had an electronic site that broke, you'd be screwed as well.
Why don't you worry about the mess your own nation is in?
One of the main problems of having a country where anyone is free to carry a weapon is that a lot of people take to using them. We frequently hear of students on the rampage in america, the Police shooting to kill etc etc.
Like I said, worry about your own country, don't concern yourself with our 'problems' because you sure as hell have enough of your own.
Got a "Special Thread", just for YOU!
Ain't it WUNDERFUL be the object of attention? :eek:
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29109
Of note, the MP5 is possibly the best Sub-Machinegun in the world, and a superb weapon for close-quarter battle when you are concerned about the potential for overpenetration (hostage situations, ops in the midst of a friendly town). Great for the police. But of limited use for the military. Very limited use.
See?
Officers do not always disagree with NCO's.
Sometimes, they even comprehend reality...
Gee whizz, thanks.