|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
0
   |
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:T
...and what makes you think iron sights will not go away eventually? Seems a bit presumptuous.
In 500+ years of the gun, not much has changed about it. We still use a black powder and projectile system and the only great improvement to weapons in those 500 years of barrel rifling. Iron sights or Patridge Sights have been around since the 1800's. So it's pretty safe to assume that while different SCOPES have been invented, Iron Sights will ALWAYS be around, they are a fundamental part of guns and if you are unable to shot 35 meters without a SCOPE then perhaps you should go back to COD.
|
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:
When I was in Vietnam in '68-69, I had two R&R's in Sidney. Great city and people. I loved going there. You Aussies also maintained a battalion in Vietnam as well, I believe. I am sure they served with distinction. I would expect nothing less.
I think we can both agree that an army that is better equipped and trained will usually do well against a poorly equipped and trained one... until modern unconventional warfare. Having personally felt the sting of knowing where I once stood as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam is now controlled by the enemy is not a good feeling. But then, Vietnam is a major producer of Kenyan coffee... so that is an unexpected plus.
However, I would hope that a Warrior that is more expensive to lose would be deployed a tad more carefully, so that is a big plus... don't you think?. As for U.S. Service Personnel not being an example of effective and efficient fighters... I just hope you do not have to run up against one of us to find out. I think you will find we are just as deadly with or without the technology. I had qualified as an expert with the M16 using the old iron sights many times over... and one would need to be more than 500 meters away from me not to be in my personal killing zone. I was generally 10/10 at the 460m line on a man size target. When it comes to marksmanship, never question the U.S. Marines. Our history stands for itself. We do not need a computer to put a round between someone's running lights. The Germans in WWI did not call us 'Devil Dogs' for nothing. It was because our 1903 Springfields were hitting them at 700-800 yards. Put a little scope on our rifles, and we are really nasty. Technology only adds to our effectiveness... it does not replace it.
So anyway, back to Dust... Sorry for the rant.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range.
Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire.
|
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 20:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jaron Pollard wrote:11Up3Down wrote:Nordac Striker wrote:
When I was in Vietnam in '68-69, I had two R&R's in Sidney. Great city and people. I loved going there. You Aussies also maintained a battalion in Vietnam as well, I believe. I am sure they served with distinction. I would expect nothing less.
I think we can both agree that an army that is better equipped and trained will usually do well against a poorly equipped and trained one... until modern unconventional warfare. Having personally felt the sting of knowing where I once stood as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam is now controlled by the enemy is not a good feeling. But then, Vietnam is a major producer of Kenyan coffee... so that is an unexpected plus.
However, I would hope that a Warrior that is more expensive to lose would be deployed a tad more carefully, so that is a big plus... don't you think?. As for U.S. Service Personnel not being an example of effective and efficient fighters... I just hope you do not have to run up against one of us to find out. I think you will find we are just as deadly with or without the technology. I had qualified as an expert with the M16 using the old iron sights many times over... and one would need to be more than 500 meters away from me not to be in my personal killing zone. I was generally 10/10 at the 460m line on a man size target. When it comes to marksmanship, never question the U.S. Marines. Our history stands for itself. We do not need a computer to put a round between someone's running lights. The Germans in WWI did not call us 'Devil Dogs' for nothing. It was because our 1903 Springfields were hitting them at 700-800 yards. Put a little scope on our rifles, and we are really nasty. Technology only adds to our effectiveness... it does not replace it.
So anyway, back to Dust... Sorry for the rant.
Well said. As an Army and Navy vet, having been deployed to both Kosovo/Bosnia and Iraqi Freedom I can tell you boys and girls that US Troops are not trained in using weapon scopes in basic training, we are and were trained to use Iron Sights on we had to do our semi-annual (Army) weapon qualifications with Iron Sights. I dare say that a properly trained Army or Marine soldier with a properly sighted in weapon will consistently outperform a scope user within visual range. Iron Sights allow for better CQB than scopes do, even red dots. A soldier moving with his weapon in the ready position can aim and fire more accurately than a scope user. The brain has a tendency to want to position the cross hair or red dot, while with an Iron Sight, what the brain sees the brain gets, there is no visual tomfoolery going on for the brain to compensate for. That being said, there is a place for scopes in weapon uses, but scopes can never replace iron sights for quick action aim and fire. And as I stated earlier as well, iron sights don't limit your field of view quite as much as a scope does.
Nope, in fact with Iron Sights (IRL) you can aim and shot with both eyes open. With a scope the brain gets conflicting visual information when both eyes are open. In game only the gun rail is seen with iron sights, with scopes the entire middle of the screen is blocked from view with the exception of the forced tunnel vision. |
11Up3Down
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 01:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nordac Striker wrote:11Up3Down wrote:In 500+ years of the gun, not much has changed about it. We still use a black powder and projectile system and the only great improvement to weapons in those 500 years of barrel rifling. Iron sights or Patridge Sights have been around since the 1800's. So it's pretty safe to assume that while different SCOPES have been invented, Iron Sights will ALWAYS be around, they are a fundamental part of guns and if you are unable to shot 35 meters without a SCOPE then perhaps you should go back to COD. I am sorry, but you are dead wrong about this. If you knew anything about sniping, you would not had said this. The idea of placing a round down range has changed... with the invention of scopes and night vision devices. The invention of the boat-tail round in the early 1900's improved range and accuracy out to 600 yards because of aerodynamics. Using high powered rounds increased round stability out to 800 yards for the 7.62 rounds. One of the exercises I used for my snipers when I was a U,S. Marine STA Platoon Sergeant was putting out a cigarette at 300m at night using a night vision scope. If you do not have any idea of the difference between hitting at a distance with iron sights verses a scope, then I am wasting my time speaking to you. When it comes to close combat for real, I have never used iron sights. I have always used the 1" above the sights rule... and it is very effective out to 100m... where firing from the hip is only about 25m. But there is no equivalent to this in Dust. In Dust Close Combat, firing from the hip is generally one's best option if one is not fully prepared for an enemy being dead center in front of them. This is to get a quick shot off to hit the enemy before they hit you. This is why I say RPM and quick reactions is the big thing in FPS games when close in. What I try to do is learn to put my target dead center on my computer screen when I fire... that is usually the point of impact, not the end of the weapon. So I use my Light or Heavy Weapon at range, and my Sidearm when close in. For me, this is an assault weapon for range and a SMG for close in. As for going back to CoD... sorry... no dice. I am going to stay here and make life miserable for the likes of you. When I kill you, you can proudly say you were just outgunned by a 63 year old man.
A 63 year old senile man. At what point did I mention snipers or anything like that? The debate is about Iron Sights, not sniper rifles and scopes...oh and there more types of scopes than sniper scopes now old timer. CQB is not for zoom scopes to begin with whether a2x, 3.5x or 4x, this is about your OP about Iron Sights, so why are you talking about sniper rifles? As far as my comment about no major advances in gun technology, it still stands. Boat Tail would have been useless without barrel rifling and every weapon since the invention of the Iron Sight has had one. Go read your OP again. |
|
|
| |
|