Accuracy vs firepower

[Rambo]

I go for a combination here. If I can get ten rounds into the 8 ring in the time it takes the other guy to get two rounds into the X ring, doesn't much matter does it?

[toolman]

Originally Posted by Rambo

I go for a combination here. If I can get ten rounds into the 8 ring in the time it takes the other guy to get two rounds into the X ring, doesn't much matter does it?

One shot in the head ends the discussion!

[billy]

if the threat is across the street.
i want my AK
if it is way down the valley
i want my precision .308win rifle.

if it is in my bedroom
i want my sp101/crimson trace .357

[Parrothead]

My current arsenal includes an AK-47 (semi auto), a Steyr M95, and a Marlin Model 60

I reckon that if the threat is in my apartment, I'll probably reach for the AK. If the sight of me in my glasses and underwear holding an AK-47 with fixed bayonet doesn't cause them to retreat, I've got 30 more reasons for them to retreat ready and waiting !

On the other hand, I can put 17 rounds accurately out of the Marlin in just a couple of seconds (low recoil and all) and really ruin someone's day.

I haven't shot the Steyr yet, but after looking at its ammo and size compared to the M-44 I shot, I'd say I just have to get close and the muzzle blast would put the threat through the sliding glass door or into the wall

I really don't like any of my arsenal for home defense (over penetration), but it'll do in a pinch . For home defense I'll take a nice 12ga any day and plan to pick one up before too long.

As far as the accuracy vs. firepower, I'll take a balance and like others have said, it depends on just how accurate you mean by "accurate." I'm perfectly happy out to a reasonable distance with my AK as far as accuracy, but I wouldn't take it to compete at 1000 yards Just give me a Barrett .50 BMG semi-auto rifle with the option of belt or magazine feed with an auto-adjusting scope slaved to a laser range finder and I'll be happy!

Something not addressed here is maneuverability/portability. My dream Barrett above would be great for accuracy and firepower to a large degree, but it's not very maneuverable or portable. If I have to be maneuverable, I think I'd take an MP-5 in 308 with a big magazine, but I'm still learning all the time...

[wunhunglo]

Accuracy & firepower equals= L4 light machine gun, what most people know as the 7.62Nato BREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[billy]

Originally Posted by Parrothead

My current arsenal includes an AK-47 (semi auto), a Steyr M95, and a Marlin Model 60

I reckon that if the threat is in my apartment, I'll probably reach for the AK. If the sight of me in my glasses and underwear holding an AK-47 with fixed bayonet doesn't cause them to retreat, I've got 30 more reasons for them to retreat ready and waiting !

On the other hand, I can put 17 rounds accurately out of the Marlin in just a couple of seconds (low recoil and all) and really ruin someone's day.

I haven't shot the Steyr yet, but after looking at its ammo and size compared to the M-44 I shot, I'd say I just have to get close and the muzzle blast would put the threat through the sliding glass door or into the wall

I really don't like any of my arsenal for home defense (over penetration), but it'll do in a pinch . For home defense I'll take a nice 12ga any day and plan to pick one up before too long.

As far as the accuracy vs. firepower, I'll take a balance and like others have said, it depends on just how accurate you mean by "accurate." I'm perfectly happy out to a reasonable distance with my AK as far as accuracy, but I wouldn't take it to compete at 1000 yards Just give me a Barrett .50 BMG semi-auto rifle with the option of belt or magazine feed with an auto-adjusting scope slaved to a laser range finder and I'll be happy!

Something not addressed here is maneuverability/portability. My dream Barrett above would be great for accuracy and firepower to a large degree, but it's not very maneuverable or portable. If I have to be maneuverable, I think I'd take an MP-5 in 308 with a big magazine, but I'm still learning all the time...

that 12 gauge will go through a few wall with slugs.

[Bigbuck 215]

Originally Posted by toolman

One shot in the head ends the discussion!

Not all the time. A guy at a gun show in Denver several years ago took six .45 rnds. to the upper body and one in the head. So, instead of the police letting him bleed out, they got him to a hospital where he was given several units of blood and today, he's in as good condition as anybody else. Too bad!

[Parrothead]

Billy,

Yep, that 12ga will go through walls with slugs, but I was planning on either birdshot or small buckshot

[perdidochas]

Originally Posted by samuel

The debate between the two can only be carried on by lack of personal experience or lack of information.If accuracy would defeat firepower the English with their hundreds of rifles against the Zulu with their thousands of spears would never been overrun by the Zulu.

The Zulus lost the war.

Originally Posted by samuel

Custer,who was armed with single shot rifles and slow loading but accurate Colt revolvers instead of Winchester repeaters and fast loading S&W revolvers would have defeated the Indians.

The Indians lost the war

Originally Posted by samuel

The Germans would have massicured the Englesh with their 10shot fast action enfields and the Americans with their M1,s,

The M1s were almost as accurate as the Mauser's. Also, the Germans used a lot of SMGs.

Originally Posted by samuel

and the american forces in Nam never would have stood a chance.

Firepower was about equal. The M16 vs. the AK.

Originally Posted by samuel

If you believe you can go against 2to5 assailants armed with high capacity handguns or rapid fire rifles with a single action revolver,a hunting-target rifle,or even a slow followup pump shotgun,I wish you luck.

A pump shotgun can usually shoot as fast (if not faster) than a semi-automatic shotgun.

Originally Posted by samuel

Some battles may be won by accuracy and I believe you should practice marksmanship,but in the real world the highest majority of battles will be won by the side that can and does get the most bullets in the air the fastest.

Our approach in Vietnam was to get the most bullets in the air the fastest. It didn't work.

Originally Posted by samuel

The real stratigy is to make the other side quit attacking you.Making him keep his head down is highly important.That is why my choice for hd is high cap pistols and rifles instead of 1911,s,pump shotguns,and target anythings.

And feel free to do that. ALso, look at the muhajideen, who pretty much kept the Soviets at a stalemate with Lee Enfield bolt actions vs. AK-47s.

Originally Posted by samuel

Also I will go for lighter recoil over knockdown so I can control the rapid fire.A rapid fire,high cap weapon firing 10m over someones head,no matter how powerful it is will not be as effective as a rapidfire smallbore weapon firing at body level.And taking one enemy out cleanly will not work as well as keeping all of them ducking instead of firing at you.

You are making the same kind of generalizations that you claim others are making. You have to look at all of the variables.

Basically, you are subscribing to the fire enough times and you'll scare them off theory. I don't buy it, especially with your weak arguments in favor of it.

[Dookiebutt]

Ask the Germans about the Russians.

[AKHunter]

I didn't read the entire thread but, for the most part your statement rings true or ceratinly can Samuel,except, and the biggest exception in my mind it the U.S. revolutionary war. The British had massive advantage in firepower and funding and sheer numbers of bodies over the American settlers in that war. Tactics and motivation were major driving forces in the war to the Americans advantge but, part of the tactics involved accuracy, they had to make every shot count.

I do play and enjoy strategy games, and this goes for sports. A superior defense is the best offense.

So does guerrilla warfare.

[YankeeSpirit76]

AK, your right about the Brit's and yanks, but the only reason we won that war was because the few battles we won (we were getting our ass's handed to us) were because they were very decisive battles. Washington crossed the Delaware and took the Hessian's at Princeton without firing a shot...complete surprise, then he went on to take Trenton almost the same way. Yorktown was the icing on the cake. It was all but over then.

[Ferroflame]

Accuracy or firepower..?

Hmm...

I choose the Barrett .50

Can't go wrong with that. :]

[Rex in OTZ]

Unless you have a bountafull supply of ammo, your not gonna win a firefight by triggering more rounds cause youll have burned up a years wages in ammo in no time!
common sense dictates conflict avoidance or choose your battles wisely and when the odds are in your favor to press your advantage.
Ammo procurement "butterknife brigade?" as other avinues of resupply will be shut down. so accuracy will be essental, but even if you tag one what is to keep you from being hunted down and exterminated like a wild dog?
there will only be strength in numbers as independent's will be picked off by roving extermination patrols outside there safety zones, Kinda like Iraq is now
it may pay to whatch what is going on now and keep that in mind.

[TACAV]

Id rather have a gun I can shoot accurately and competently and hit my target then a gun that might be faster or hold more rounds but I cant hit anything with.

One shot on target is better than a thousand near hits. But yea a good mix of the two cant be argued with.

[7mmremmag1995]

Originally Posted by Midas

When accuracy and power can be combined, it makes a deadly combo.

+1

[andrew cochran]

I like accuracy and firepowere but in a defence situation at close range I would take firepower.

[Rex in OTZ]

In defence its going to be fast paced if pushed and will require a shot gun with buck shot if stormed and for distance 150 yards most scoped deer rifles should do anything under 150yds its iron sited SKS or a Rossi 92 lever in .45 colt.

[tlarkin]

With combat there is really only one factor to consider and that is efficiency, hands down. You want to accomplish your task with putting forth the least amount of effort. That way you conserve energy and time for other things. Every person is different. You are never fighting against a style of fighting or a gun, you are fighting against a person and their attributes. Sure some technology does come into play, but if the user can not wield their weapon effectively it is ultimately useless.


Why bother fighting someone in a life or death situation when you can just kill them or avoid them all together?

If you can accurately fire a high power weapon then by all means do so, but of course there are other downsides as well. Does it require more maintenance, is it heavier, is the ammo harder to come by?

Efficiency is key regardless across all platforms of combat. Wasted motion is wasted energy and the longer you give your opponent to fight back the odds of survival start to go down.

Use what you know and what you are good with.

[mym1a]

assuming it would be an insurgent type battle and a superior adversary,seems rather suicidal to confront them head on?yeah I suppose you can stand like rambo with a belt of 40 thousand rounds wrapped around your body and just start spraying?????I'm not sure what that would achieve? other then a dead man with several rounds wrapped around his body?????or you could fight a gorrilla type war pick and choose your targets and battles when you can?????????