Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleks
Its still a rifle. That's the point I'm making. No you can't compare a pistol to a rifle. That's not what I'm doing
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
|
Looking back (I needed to search up, have been out of the topic for a while) - I think you might be getting stuck on the concept of pure raw damage.
The concern is in the capability of an untrained person. Trained shooters, sure, there's less difference between semi and full automatic. But to an untrained or minimally trained person (who is the primary user in this case), it's much easier to blast and deal damage if all they have to do is hold the trigger. They don't have the same aiming instincts a trained shooter has. For them, it could easily be the difference between 15 shots in 3 seconds and 2 shots in 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleks
And armies do go into battle with pistols, browning hi powers actually in Canada and beretta 92s in the US. They also have shotguns. Point?
|
They also don't go in with them as their primary weapon. Shotguns, if memory serves, are specialized tools while sidearms are designed as backups. When general heavy lifting is required, rifles are most frequently brought in. Correct me if I'm wrong though, as I don't commonly look at military equipment and distribution.
Yes, by technicality, you're right - we DO sent in the troops with handguns. However, we don't expect them to perform with those better than an enemy who's equally trained, but given a rifle.