accuracy or reliability

ACCURACY OR RELIABILITY

When choosing a military long gun you are able to choose one of two desired qualities, accuracy or reliability ( the HK-91 system, German, the original Spanish-sometimes- or now American, combines both but is the higher priced arm. For Po’ Folk, they can be a hard sell for the budget ). Both in my discussions on the old World War Two Enfields verses the Mauser and the just posted AR verses the AK, I’ve stated that my personal preference is to choose reliability over accuracy. Yet most of the rest of the time, I’m screaming like a little girl about how you are limited to the rounds of ammunition on hand after the Apocalypse and you need to coddle and squeeze and perform unnatural acts of love on each and every round and not waste them ( for our purposes here, I’m NOT reversing my position that semi-auto’s are evil and will waste ammo for all but an extremely small portion of survivalists who will be able to actually manage fire discipline under a flood of adverse brain chemicals beyond anyone’s control. I’m assuming you choose to buy semi’s for their ruggedness and design functionality-not for speed of firing but for their higher standard of engineering- but will deactivate the bolt cycling mechanism ). So which is it? Am I telling you to waste shots in an inaccurate weapon or am I telling you to make every shot count? You can’t have it both ways, right?

*

Okay, here is my thinking on the subject. The mid-size caliber rifles/carbines are based on the finding that the average range in a combat encounter is around thirty yards or so. For these weapons, three hundred yards is at the far range and the average shooter is relying on luck more than skill getting a hit. At the six hundred yard range of the thirty caliber rifles, well, those are sniper ranges. So, thirty cal is over kill for your average infantryman. Survivalists like the thing for its stopping power ( stories of "skinnies" taking three shots of 223 to go down, etc. ) but they do tend to give themselves too much credit for imagined skill at long ranges ( yes, I loved "Unintended Consequences" all to pieces myself. But he was a life long trained sniper-you certainly are NOT ). If you scale your rifle shots down to realistic ranges, one hundred to one hundred and fifty yards, not only can you actually see your target without glass, you can also actually hit it. Even if your gun is not a fabled "one inch group". You might have been operating under a set of misconceptions about your military weapon. As in, it is actually the best there is because the government wanted its military to excel. But almost everything EXCEPT optimal performance goes into its selection. Logistics, political power, economics, bribery, etc., gets first dibs. A politician who cares a serf was slaughtered because his weapon malfunctioned? Where? When? That creature doesn’t exist. It is up to you to chose the weapon that keeps you alive. And a quick to foul and jam gun, even if it is accurate, is not in your best interests in keeping YOU alive.

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year. *The Old Bison Blog on CD: Over five years of work and nearly two million words of pure brilliance. Here is the link to order:http://kunaki.com/sales.asp?PID=PX00KX7Z1I                         Also as a free e-book, but not cleaned up or organized, at Lulu*Contact Information* Links To Others* Top 20 Survivalist Fiction* Land In Elko* Lord Bison*my bio & biblio*My books: http://bisonprepper.blogspot.com/2015/04/my-book-links.html*By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there.