Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 	* While they make the weapon lighter, they do
> 		not necessarily make it *better*.  

Well, the initial threat did not state wether the
development had to be better...

Anyhow, bulpups ARE a lot easier to carry and
handle... which means that they are always accesable.
Not a 'tactical' advantage, but useful when you're
having a dump/digging a trench/running away when your
longarm is likely to be a yard away but your bulpup is
still on you.

> Optical sighting systems for non-snipers:
> 	* Do not make the weapon system better.  As Col.
> 		Jeff Cooper has remarked, a scope will make
> 		a good marksman even better, and will give
> 		a poor marksman just one more contraption
> 		to blame his poor results on.  I am unaware
> 		of any real advantage conferred by low-power
> 		combat optics which cannot be equally 
> 		conferred by training.

I disagree. UK marksmanship standards and the
standards required in the APWT were raised after
introduction of IW and SUSAT.
Low powered combat optics are designed to be a 'no
brainer' to use. In WWI your statement would be true,
but not really today.

Also, the human eye is simply incapable of resolving
at certain ranges. A scope gives everyone
'binoculars'.

NV scopes are of course an added item to the package,
giving a massive night combat advantage to the force
using them.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com