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

["Robert J. Hansen" <rjhansen@xxxxxxxx>]

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

Digression: laser sights.  Laser sights work really nice at the range. 
Generally speaking, though, they're awful in the sharp end.  The USN did
some behavioral research and found out why: people get so obsessed with
watching the little dot that they forget to watch their target instead. 
USN discovered that although laser sights are great for range work, for
field work the old standby of iron sights were best.  There are certain
instances where laser sights are a real advantage, but for a general
rule, it's best if people rely on the iron sights instead.

Moral of the story: not everything that boosts a range qualification
score improves field accuracy.

There are instances where a low-power optical sight is called for--but
saying that the addition of low-power optical sights is a revolution in
firearms technology on the level of Gustavus Adolphus introducing the
prepared cartridge, or Minie developing aerodynamic shot, or Maxim's
machine gun or the Mauser bolt action, is a stretch which I simply can't
buy.