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

[Mike Fortey <forteymj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> That doesn't mean they can hit anything, Mike. 

As in 'they can't hit jack'
or
'they can't hit everything'

In the first case, I would like to point out that APWT
isn't carried out from nice standing positions on a
covered range. I also believe that it exceeds US
infantry marksmanship standards. As did I believe the
SLR standards.
Despite moving to a shorter range round, standards
have improved. Also consider that in the UK 95% of
recruits have probably never touched a rifle before
joining up.

 I've
> been hunting for
> almost twenty years now, and I've never needed to
> put a scope on any of
> my weapons.

I am sure that most people's shooting would improve
with one, though. It is simply impossible for the
human eye to resolve at long range without
magnification.

> sure, they can do
> acceptably at the range, but that doesn't
> necessarily translate into
> better field work.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Why would a scope
not improve matters in the field?

> From almost twenty years of hunting experience, I
> have to say I agree
> wholeheartedly with Col. Cooper.

We'll agree to disagree then. I prefer a scope by a
large margin. At long range it's easier to actually
hit and it's also a lot better for pinpointing
something to hit.
I don't know of many troops who'd prefer an iron
sight.
 
> > NV scopes are of course an added item to the
> package,
> > giving a massive night combat advantage to the
> force
> > using them.

Valid point, I guess

Mike

__________________________________________________
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