Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can one handgun take on an Army?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1310970" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>From what I've seen of the people our military is at war with right now, it appears that most of them don't even really know their way around a rifle very well... and they're still giving our folks quite a fight.</p><p></p><p>Just think about how different it would be if we were going up against a nation of Riflemen, like what <em>we used </em>to be.</p><p></p><p>I would be afraid for all of my buddies in the military's sake what would happen if someone friendly with the resistance in Afghanistan took some kind of Appleseed-type instruction, especially the "train the trainer" part, and brought that knowledge over to them. It would go viral... you can teach people all the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship, AND how to teach them to others, with just a 25m patch of land and some inch squares; and then all those people can go out and do the same thing.</p><p></p><p>Right now, most of our casualties are inflicted by improvised explosives. I don't think the Afghanis truly understand the power of rifle marksmanship and the effect it can have on an occupying force, or those numbers would be a lot higher and more of them would be due to rifle fire. I understand that body armor cuts down on the casualties from small arms fire a lot, but it CERTAINLY doesn't eliminate them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1310970, member: 4235"] From what I've seen of the people our military is at war with right now, it appears that most of them don't even really know their way around a rifle very well... and they're still giving our folks quite a fight. Just think about how different it would be if we were going up against a nation of Riflemen, like what [I]we used [/I]to be. I would be afraid for all of my buddies in the military's sake what would happen if someone friendly with the resistance in Afghanistan took some kind of Appleseed-type instruction, especially the "train the trainer" part, and brought that knowledge over to them. It would go viral... you can teach people all the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship, AND how to teach them to others, with just a 25m patch of land and some inch squares; and then all those people can go out and do the same thing. Right now, most of our casualties are inflicted by improvised explosives. I don't think the Afghanis truly understand the power of rifle marksmanship and the effect it can have on an occupying force, or those numbers would be a lot higher and more of them would be due to rifle fire. I understand that body armor cuts down on the casualties from small arms fire a lot, but it CERTAINLY doesn't eliminate them. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Can one handgun take on an Army?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom