>>63997966
>The first sentence says that lethality of present weapons cannot be improved by increasing "hitting power", so battle rifles are a bigger waste of time than regular assault rifles, forget all about poison bullets. If soldiers couldn't hit shit with assault rifles then they won't hit shit with battle rifles either, all while carrying heavier, hard recoiling guns with less ammo to boot.
Yeah, and it's a lie on multiple counts.
>Which means about 80% of kills they made were under 300 yards, which means that is the majority of engagements.
Yeah lol: In WWII, with no optics at all and soldiers who couldn't shoot straight. What do you think the proportions would be with accurate modern rifles, optics and decent training? Did you know that in Afghanistan the majority of lethal small arms engagements were past 300 yards?
>Battle rifles didn't do so hot up close against VC with AKs now did it?
They did fine when it wasn't McNamara's morons using them. Picrel. Also, did you know that the M16 was already in service _before_ the VC had AKs in Vietnam? The M14 vs AK thing is mostly an anachronism.
>The m16 won, keep seething.
Are they even in service anymore? M7 is replacing your carbine. Keep seething.