I've often wondered about the fascination with full auto fire. In the Army I was taught that it was only useful for ambushes - both on offense and defense - and sometimes for suppressing fire.
Everyone should have at least a little bit of a man-crush on Larry F'ing Vickers.
Esrice, do you have a new man crush? James isn't going to like this.
Was waiting to see who'd be the first.
I've said it a dozen times, I bring what I feel is new and interesting gun-related content to INGOers as it's uploaded to YT-- regardless of who the spokesperson is. Yeager happens to get a lot of "air time" because he is putting up new content on a regular basis. Vickers just uploaded all of this stuff today so I've been sorting through it and posting what I can.
Everyone should have at least a little bit of a man-crush on Larry F'ing Vickers.
Everyone should have at least a little bit of a man-crush on Larry F'ing Vickers.
Nice, would have had different outcome with an m-16, burst or full auto. Why? Because the barrel and stock are in a direct line and there is very little muzzle climb as compared to an AK. Which means, even on 3 round bursts, as long as you aren't jerking the rifle around, the shots are going to be very close together as compared to a rifle that has a barrel out of line with it's stock.
This.
ALSO, who goes for "head shots"? Everyone is always preaching CENTER MASS!!! If you know you are going to have rifle climb, then there is NO REASON to aim anywhere BUT center mass, and let the rifle climb to a "head shot". He could have been much more accurate, had time for more rounds on target, and been much faster if he would have chosen this method.
Unless it's from the 25mm cannon on the top of a bradley. Then it's good pretty much all the time.