Search results

Not intended.

What a silly statement! Why would you carry a heavy rifle with less ammo and big recoil for a mission that does not require engagements designed for it. Precisely the reason that Indian forces switched to captured AK-47s of Kashmiri terrorists in 1990s from their FN-FAL. You are mixing desert...

People miss targets at 15 yards even with training- happens with police officers all the time. That does not minimize the importance of training. Are we seriously arguing that equipping a good rifle with decent scope is unnecessary? C’mon bud

Firing 22LR you used a 4x scope and you are asking if scope are needed or not for .308? Seriously! Why so much BS arguments? Here’s a reminder of size of those two bullets. All .308 rifles need a decent scope. If you don’t know that. It’s on you.

Here, some of my colleagues teach here: 800 meter engagements for anyone who knows how to handle a weapon. https://www.ftatv.com/advanced Sounds like the thinking here is stuck in times before right optics, match ammunition and plateform were readily available.

If goal is to engage not beyond 200 meters then why buy SIG 716 and waste any money? Battle rifles were never designed for sub 200 meter engagements. A quick search on history of battle rifles would confirm that. Both AK or AR-15 are much better suited for that range in every known requirement...

1. With right technology, average grunt can perform his best. That’s the goal. With right scope hitting an 800 yard target is as easy as hitting a 200 yard target with iron sights. It’s never a waste to provide your soldiers the right equipment. 2. I doubt the role of these battle rifles was...

Red dot on SIG 716 is injustice to .308 range power. Burris MTAC 1-4x24 or similar scopes are not too expensive and provide stellar performance at 800 yards. Red dots are good for AR-15 and similar platforms but beyond 400 yards, the dot is too big for practical purposes.