Five minutes of hate news

No, I'm with him, I'd rather have the matchlock too. A vintage 1850s matchlock would go for a fortune at auction and I could use part of that to buy a modern rifle and bank the rest.
The antique percussion cap rifles used back then outrange an M4 and it's not even funny. My big sister's 1853 Enfield is calibrated for 1,600yds and my big sis Euphie doesn't need a scope to hit something further away.

The rate of fire is slow. Getting hit by a 0.58" Minié Ball, however, is not pleasant as many accounts of just how horrible US Civil War injuries were.
 
I'm not talking about that.
The M4 is a carbine and the A1 is better
I'd rather have any of the following weapons than a M4/AR-15.

Karabiner 98k and derivatives

SVD Dragunov

Lee Enfield SMLE

M1903 Springfield

Mosin-Nagant

THE ROSS RIFLE

And any .50 markmen weapon

Bolt action and semi autos chambered in .30 or bigger is what the Taliban used in Afghanistan to snipe Coalition forces from outside the effective range of their AR type weapons.

Also, I hope your aware of the statistics of how many bullets it takes for a M16/AR-15 armed soldier before they hit a target compared to the number used by markmen.
 
The antique percussion cap rifles used back then outrange an M4 and it's not even funny. My big sister's 1853 Enfield is calibrated for 1,600yds and my big sis Euphie doesn't need a scope to hit something further away.

The rate of fire is slow. Getting hit by a 0.58" Minié Ball, however, is not pleasant as many accounts of just how horrible US Civil War injuries were.
My dude, the target used by an 1853 Enfield to test accuracy (at 600 yards) was six feet across with the center two feet the bullseye. Being able to hit said target 7 times with 20 rounds ranked the shooter as a marksman. Modern weapons aren't less accurate, they're simply measured on a much, much tighter standard where the entire target is smaller than the Enfield's bullseye alone was, and a modern soldier would be expected to hit far more than 1 in 3 shots to be called a marksman.
 
My dude, the target used by an 1853 Enfield to test accuracy (at 600 yards) was six feet across with the center two feet the bullseye. Being able to hit said target 7 times with 20 rounds ranked the shooter as a marksman. Modern weapons aren't less accurate, they're simply measured on a much, much tighter standard where the entire target is smaller than the Enfield's bullseye alone was, and a modern soldier would be expected to hit far more than 1 in 3 shots to be called a marksman.
My big sis Euphie wasn't impressed by Quigley Down Under.



She's a much better shot than what the movie did to impress the audience.
 
Bolt guns are obsolete

The vast majority of fighting occurs within 500m, majority within 300m. Also old bolt guns had standards of accuracy that are like 3-4MOA.

My understanding is that The Afghanistan ambushes were with .30 cal machine guns, not bolt guns.

Edit: This detail might be best moved to another thread.
 
Last edited:
ouIV0p9l.jpeg


"My FeLLoW wHItE PeOplE, we need to learn our place on the progressive stack... something something QTBIPOC, something something marginalized!"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top