“Only accurate rifles are interesting”
Originally published at VolkStudio Blog. You can comment here or there.
I don’t actually agree with that view. A 4MOA AK clone is plenty useful for its intended purpose. But given that we the people are far behind the most probable enemy in firepower, we have two main options. The first is to close in and so avoid the enemy support weapons. That option is a loser because we are overmatched on the rate of fire, the amount of body armor, on the availability of grenades and closer quarters training in general.
The second option is to sniper from stand-off distance. While that makes us vulnerable to indirect support weapons as well as to vehicle mounted stabilized machine guns and cannon, it gives some chance of escape without detection. Absent sufficient explosives to make an ambush count, that means relying on the first shot hit against distant, armored and possibly moving foe. The cost in inaccuracy isn’t in the ammunition but in the risk of detection and in the the exposure to return fire. In that sense, only accurate rifles with good ammunition and very, very competent shooters are interesting.
My fondness for the mfour-22 shown is that it is MOA accurate. That allows realistic training with much of the ultimate effectiveness being in the skill of the shooter. Now, it is possible to conduct ambushes with inaccurate weapons. For example, a sniper would open up with a single round and much closer shooters on the opposite side would fire once the noise of the return fire masks the reports of their lower power short range arms. But body armor is likely to make tactic that less effective than it would have been during WW2.
But that’s all silly talk. Nothing bad is coming up in the near future and the main purpose of this mfour-22 is fun. A day out on the range is good for the mood and for the physical health also - especially if you jog to the 100 and 200 yards backstops when changing targets. You don’t get as much cardiac exercise while playing shooter video games.