Re: Use Winchester 30-30s in Iraq

BlackWater wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:00:52 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
> >>
> >>>But as for the AKs, they have their advantages.  But "knockdown" power
> >>>isn't one of them.  Neither is actually hitting a target more than 200
> >>>yards away.
> >>
> >>   You can barely SEE a target 200 yards away through
> >>   iron sights - especially in a dusty and/or smokey
> >>   environment. 200 yard accuracy is just fine ...
> >
> >Not in Afghanistan, it's not.
> 
>    There ARE exceptions ... although there's still the
>    limitation of iron combat sights. For the 'Stan, they
>    should break out some of the old M-14s and put a
>    low-power scope on 'em.
> 
If you'll notice, in Iraq the M-16s are often with some sort of scope.


>    Face it, there's no gun that "does it all". Close-
>    quarters combat demands submachineguns,
>
MP-5 chambered for whatever the sidearm uses.


> most combat
>    needs something in the AK-47 class and wide open
>    country demands a long-range rifle. Until the Trekkie
>    boys perfect phasor rifles 
>
I love how on Star Trek they completely forget the idea of having some
regular lead firing explosive powder propelled weapons available even
though they regularly land on planets where something makes their
phasors inoperative.


> we're gonna continue to
>    run into situations where there's a mis-match between
>    weapon and combat environment.
>
Clearly, no single weapon is good for all applications. Probable, is
everyone willing and ready to learn to operate and clean many different
types of weapons for different applications? Clearly limiting the
choices is a good idea, at least for general use.