Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HOLLiS
My thoughts are pretty simple on this. For the QP's they know what they need and why, failure to function in a firearm or any piece of equipment is not a option for them. For me, and with most shooters, the targets we engage do not shoot back. A failure may be frustrating but not deadly. Also for many shooters, there are movies that "instill" in them what what want to look like, what they want to shoot, and it is all a harmless game generally that keep a lot of people employed.
|
Hollis:
True except that the best competitive shooters are looking at their next year's income in almost any National title. I think they are far more demanding of absolute perfection in mechanical performance than the military as a whole and this probably includes its share of SF guys.
Now before everyone gets in an uproar, most competitive shooters who are serious will have their rifles or pistols totally rebuilt, mostly based on round count which probably equates to twice a year. Also, they won't accept anything other than perfect function and mechanical accuracy.
The Army would do well to follow this example of round count and complete rebuild, instead of waiting for a part to break and replacing only that part. The problem is getting the guys to record the round count. Even with SF guys. Also, there is a weird acceptance in the Army of weapons that aren't perfectly reliable or whose accuracy is lousy. I know why such an attitude exists but it still bothers me.
I have never been impressed with the reliability of issued rifles, carbines, or pistols and as far as I know, guys aren't allowed to bring their own blasters to war. I do know that SFGs and Ranger Battalions are authorized civilian armorers who can do depot level maintenance but take my word for it, they are kept on a very tight leash when it comes to making adjustments to weapons or weapons parts. Too bad because most of these civilian armorers can turn issued weapons into extremely reliable and precise weapons.
Gene