Yes or at least everyone I saw in while I was active had at least a minimum of an ACOG, the exception to the rule was that I did see some NG units without them.Soccerdad1995 wrote:Dumb question here, but are our soldiers currently issued rifles with optics attached? I ask because when I got out in 1991 we just had iron sights on our rifles and I had a heck of a time reliably hitting even the 300 yard targets on the range. Then again, I was not the best marksman out there. Probably somewhere near the middle of the pack.Pariah3j wrote:Not quite sure why the basic rifleman needs weapons designed to engage targets beyond 500yrds - because the M16/M4/5.56 can accurately and easily do that range without a problem. Modern Infantry hasn't engaged at ranges much greater then this - at least not the standard infantryman. In fact its mainly been street/urban fighting mostly - and that doesn't look to change anytime soon for any future conflicts.Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm
Search found 2 matches
Return to “US Army wants to bring back the Battle Rifle”
- Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:54 pm
- Forum: Rifles & Shotguns
- Topic: US Army wants to bring back the Battle Rifle
- Replies: 30
- Views: 6355
Re: US Amry wants to bring back the Battle Rifle
- Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Forum: Rifles & Shotguns
- Topic: US Army wants to bring back the Battle Rifle
- Replies: 30
- Views: 6355
Re: US Amry wants to bring back the Battle Rifle
I think the HK417 would be a better option and easier transition since the platform is closer to the M4 than the FAL.