Being pretty familiar with the technical and operational aspects of long range prescsion engagement (sniping) I would agree.
This sight was developed for sniper type applications, not marksmen. Cost wise, it is less than a TI sight and a lot of armies, are looking to equip each fire team with a TI sight.A designated marksman could use such a toy, but they're so numerous that the toy's price becomes a factor - and designated marksmen need sights for very short range. This favours variable sights with minimum 1-1.5x and maximum 3.4-6x - unsuitable for 1,200m shots.
An alternative is the use of two sights, of course.
The 1,200m statement is an example of technical capability, not an example of operational need. Yes, I'm pretty sceptical of it, but I am making no assumptions about the things you state, until I've seen it working.
I'd agree.Any general infantry weapon that's meant to hit at more than 400-600m is suspicious to me.
Well all that assumes a direct cause and effect between actions and reactions, which is not what activity on current operations shows. What "First Week?"That's fine for snipers, but infantry would merely force the enemy to become less sloppy (invisible) by shooting+hitting at extreme distances.
That also gives away the own presence (if not location).
I'd say reserve anything between 300 and 500m for the designated marksmen (and designated marksman rifles+automatic carbines should probably succeed 'assault rifles' in general), snipers and indirect fires.
Reserve anything 500m+ for snipers and indirect fires.
Sometimes you should simply hide and observe, provoke carelessness and maybe prepare an ambush instead of shooting.
Infantry wouldn't achieve many 1,200m hits anyway. First week maybe - then it'll simply have an empty battlefield and be frustrated because it lacks 'situational awareness'.
Bookmarks