Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Prodigal Son
Personally, I like to be able to shoot at something from a long ways off and have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

Not me. I'll take a weapon that is light and fast any day. When it starts to get close and personal, I would rather avoid boat anchors at all cost. Go ahead and have a guy or two in your squad with some extended range capability (something that the M16 can be configured to do quite adequately actually, if built right), but you'll want most of your guys using systems that are optimized for killing in the 200 meters and under range.

24 posted on 07/13/2003 4:17:39 PM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: tortoise
Well, we both have our opinions on this. Apparantly some of the guys on the ground see it both ways:
“The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4’s range,” the Army report stated. “In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.”

28 posted on 07/13/2003 4:25:09 PM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson