Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Fair enough...
Then all the more to my point, say we assume that both the 1,000 men and the other 100 men are well trained (or both are not). Given the scenario of 1,000 fighting the 100 on a large open field beginning at far distance from one another, which weapon would you consider best for your 100 men to win this battle against 1,000 with .357s?
Not like a bad guy has any trouble getting trained to use the weapon of choice after all...
|
Lol, well Neapolianic tactics using modern firearms
..the thought truly scares me in all honesty. Such tactics were obsolete in the American Civil War when single shot rifle muskets were top of the line, but for the sake of discussion :
Since volley fire is the name of the game in such a confrontation as we are postulating I would arm my entire 100 with the M1 Garand or M1A. The M1A has the advantage of a higher mag capacity but even so the design of the rifle encourages accurate, aimed shooting.
At distances beyond 200 yards that 100 riflemen could and probably would just shred a 1000 guys with even top of the line 357 revolvers. Providing they can hold their ranks and pick their targets. The 357 armed force could however rain six shot volleys with advancing line tactics and even at considerable distance that many shooters firing at a concentrated group of men with magnum loads would be quite daunting.
Picture ten lines of 100 shooters each line firing six shots and then advancing the next line while the last retires to the rear to reload. That is a LOT of concentrated fire. This hypothetical battle would be seriously ugly for all involved. The advantage would be with the 100 riflemen for shear ability to effectively hit their targets and using the standard 20 round magazine of the M1A vs the six available to a 357 revolver (though 8 shot 357s are readily available ) and the ability of the 7.62x51 NATO round to penetrate multiple targets the 1000 man force would not be overly enthusiastic about standing in volley lines against that 100 shooters.
In looking at Paddocks rampage I actually have not seen a list of the rifles he used beyond that they were AR type. Specific calibers he used I don't know. I'm assuming he was using standard 5.56/223 versions as bump stocks would not work well with heavier cartridges like the 308. Again, he only made as many actual hits as he did because he was firing at a packed crowd.
Fully ato type fire is not even as deadly effective as is commonly believed. Hits to rounds fired ratios are quite low unless as was the case in Vegas the people being fired at are packed together like sardines. Such a situation is what full auto was designed for. Massed advancing lines of troops. Weapons tech advanced far faster than tactics did through history. WW1 is a prime example. Napoleonic tactics against machine guns and accurate heavy artillery.
Fully automatic fire is given far to much credit for actual effectiveness. The thought of blasting off a 30 round magazine in a space of seconds sounds really scary. Truly it looks really scary and if your downrange of an automatic weapon it IS truly scary. But full auto misses it's targets far more than it hits in reality. If targets are dispersed over a wide area it's not as effective as many think it is.
Paddocks attack in Vegas has been Compared to Whitmans in TX and it's been suggested that Paddock followed Whitmans playbook. Digging in at an elevated position. However that single thing is where any similarity ends. Whitman used precise, aimed fire. Paddock used total area fire. Whitmans victims were widely spaced and he took each out with one shot. Paddocks victims were crammed together and he didn't aim a single shot. As close as he came to aiming was pointing the muzzle in a general direction.
Whitman found himself pinned down by citizens who retrieved their personal rifles and shot back which allowed two police officers to get to where he was and kill him. Paddock didn't have return fire to contend with. So there may have been some similarities between the two attacks but there were far more differences.
I personally believe that Paddock would have killed and inured a lot more innocent people had he not used the bump stocks and high cap magazines and instead aimed his fire. Yea, I don't figure that take is shared by everyone, but I stand by it. Just like that force of 1000 with 357 revolvers being limited to pretty much imprecise volley fire that could be closely matched by archers.
The point is high ammunition capacity and a high cyclic rate sounds more scary and deadly that is actually is. It requires its targets to be massed closely together and it's also a lot of hard work for a single shooter to maintain. Had Paddock been a truly competent rifleman armed with a 6mm or up rifle of any action type he would have done more damage than he did.
I foresee vehement disagreement from some about that but again I stand firmly by the premise. Even this long after the fact there are still a LOT of unanswered questions about Paddocks rampage. Questions we will probably never see answers for. Nevertheless the solution to such lunacy does not lay in the banning of any particular class of firearm from citizen ownership and use. That would not stop anyone bent on some sort of mass carnage or even be any inconvenience.
The theory is just so full of holes there is no hope of it ever holding water. Yet it is the solution clung to and rabidly defended by people who don't have the knowledge or experience to come close to justifying it. I've been accused here of being biased in my opinion and even of outright falsehood in presenting my opinion on the subject, to which all I can do is shrug and continue to present myself in the same manner.
To my mind I have made my case logically and utilizing a lifelong knowledge of firearms and also the tactics used in employing them for various purposes. I've taken the time to study these mass shooting incidents, the firearms used and how they were used and in all of these shootings that have happened in recent history there is a common thread.
The shooters have all employed methods that seem based more on what they may have seen in movies than in reality. Reaction to these shootings is also based on misguided perceptions of what a given firearms true capabilities are. A large magazine capacity and high rate of fire is quite easy to portray as the end all/beat all for inflicting damage especially to people who don't have any clue otherwise.
I have and will continue to challenge those misconceptions that I see as based on misinformation (adding that I'm not directing that at you personally) and I feel wholly confident in my position. That I am presenting personal opinions I also freely admit, but these opinions are derived from experience and fact. I have seen many different types of firearms employed for just as many or more purposes and in the course of this gained a bit of knowledge as to what the capabilities of firearms as a whole truly are as opposed to what they are often portrayed to be.
At any rate it has been somewhat refreshing postulating on your hypothetical and branching out in an actual discussion from there. Rather than exchanging absolutes and insults. I make no claims as to having any truly viable solution to the issue of violence committed by evil people with firearms but I am certainly not convinced that banning entire classes of firearms used lawfully and properly by millions of shooters everyday is any sort of answer either. As things are I personally would rather have an option to shoot back when fired upon as not.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
