Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Targan
Sounds like bullsh*t to me. The accuracy of an M240 and an M134 would be quite similar in my opinion, assuming both are being fired under the same conditions (for instance they and being fired from some kind of fixed pintle mount). Any accuracy difference would be due to the operator. By that I mean that if you are on target with the M134 you will hit the target with more rounds in a second because more rounds are being fired before the weapon has time to drift off target. Also the M134 has more overall mass, and the mass of a weapon helps to tame its recoil.
If both weapons were being bench tested I would be willing to bet that the inherent accuracy differences would be minimal.
|
There's a very old lesson MS I (freshman) ROTC cadets are taught: the "fuzzy-wuzzy fallacy." (No, I don't remember why the name.) You'd think that if you threw twice the troops at a target, you have twice the combat power, if you double the volume of fire, you double the firepower, etc. Doesn't work out that way. In general, if you double the troops, volume of firepower, explosives, etc, you have the square root that number of times of firepower --twice the troops = sqrt2 times the combat power, three times the troops, sqrt3 the combat power, etc. it's a rapidly-decaying average. So if your M-134 is putting out four times the volume of fire, you only get twice the firepower.
And right now, my cheeseburger tastes like Flonase -- damn, I hate that!