[Mike Franklin]

Let me throw in some corrections to the original posting.
The British Army lost the Battle of Isandlwana because they had no respect for the Zulu Army/Warrior. The British Column went into camp without pickets, without a kraal and without placing ranging stakes.
British Officer failed to heed repeated warning from the Native/Boer, Scouts. The camp was completely surprised and total confusion reigned. Soldiers actually stood and waited for range markers to be placed while the Zulu Army advanced at a run.
The last factor leading to defeat was the British Army’s misuse of the Quarter Master Corps. Each Unit had a Quarter Master who only issued equipment, including ammo to his own unit. When Ammo ran short at the MLR, Quarter Masters refused to issue rounds to any but their own Unit’s men. British Soldiers stood at the line with empty rifles and empty bullet pouches.
FYI, after this battle the entire British Army’s method of supplying troops changed.
At the Battle Of The Greasy Grass, poor tactics, or their execution, and under estimating the enemy again led to defeat. Communications failures had a large part to do with the defeat of Custer. The battle was really a fight between W-W Repeaters and Single Shot Trapdoors. In a running gunfight, once a Colt SAA is empty it’s just a club. I know from experience that they are eternally slow to reload.
BTW, did you know that at one time the Seventh had been armed with Spencer Repeating Rifles? Military thinking at the time demanded that the rifle or carbine, needed to be able to shoot through a horse at range in order to be effective. The Spencer’s were packed away and the slower loading Trapdoors were issued.

[therifleman]

Quote:       Originally Posted by billy

a man sized target at the limit of the average mans vision?

cool avatar billy

[RedneckCatholic]

Building on Mr. Franklin: At Greasy Grass, many knoves have been found by Archeologists--with broken tips. Inverior ammunition failed to extract. The problem was one of poor equiment in part.

At Isandlwanda, not only was supply poor, but the entire discipline of encampment in hostile territory was disregarded, bacuse the commander was tired, and felt his troops would be too.

In my experience: I have been outgunned by people in a combat situation. Accurate fire simply demoralized them, while we were not significantly attrited. In fact, we were unharmed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rounds went over our heads. about fifty rounds of SS109 5.56 NATO and 6 40mm grenades shut them down--we simply hit what we aimed at.

My experience will always, in my decicision loop, outwiegh anyones theory.

[JMcDonald]

Quote:       Originally Posted by RedneckCatholic

In my experience: I have been outgunned by people in a combat situation. Accurate fire simply demoralized them, while we were not significantly attrited. In fact, we were unharmed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of rounds went over our heads. about fifty rounds of SS109 5.56 NATO and 6 40mm grenades shut them down--we simply hit what we aimed at.

That sounds alot like what Ive heard described as "ninja thinking," haha. But, of course it makes perfect sense to me that big guns and lots of ammo will be trumped by efficient use of lesser / fewer weapons almost every time.

[RedneckCatholic]

Not so Ninja! They caught us out in the open, fat dumb and happy! They just couldn't shoot for beans!

[mym1a]

I would like to know who is going to supply everyone with these hundreds of thousands or rounds?? if sponsored by a government entity with the logistics and money ?yeah I can understand fire power over accuracy! I can see being issued mre's and being afforded medical services too!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[.303]

accuracy versus fire power. I think is exceedingly simple to answer, the more accurate soldier will win every time. the more accurate hunter will survive the winter, and the more accurate police officer will get filleted in the press and probably lose his badge. The firepower available to the american soldier today is fast moving and there's tons of it. but you have to be able to put what you fire on target.

you hit what you aim at and it can't aim at you any more. the whole Bohr war thing i think is hilarious because the Brits almost de-issued the Enfield because the dutch farmers were picking them off at longer ranges with the more accurate Mausers. but once the british soldier started learning the fast minute (something like 32 rounds on target in under 60sec at a minute I believe one soldier got 90 rounds in under a minute at -1 minute but that might just be a pub story) things evened out.

Nowadays the regular infantryman gets off on putting a thousand rounds on target. which is great if you have the logistics for that. but also there was an investigation done in the corps during the first few months when fallujah was popping off, because there were so many goddamned head shots. Internal at the marine corps thought that marines were doing execution style kills. Turned out the m16 was so good at laying suppressive fire that the only time a marine got a shot was when abdul was showing just his head. and the marine squeezed a round off. the m16 has the fire power, but the soldier has the accuracy. And i would much rather have the accurate soldier with the firepower to do something with that accuracy...

[sunwheel29]

Quote:       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. .

If my foster father was still around, he would have told you "Gee, nobody told the Viet Cong that when I was in Vietnam."
I am guessing you never saw the crossbow at the Smithsonian that the VC used to shoot down a US helicopter either.....
It doesnt' matter how much ammo capacity you have in your magazine or how many rounds are on your belt fed. The only rounds that matter are the ones that hit the target.
The day after Doomsday, I would rather have a Ruger Super Blackhawk than a Glock 17.
Jeff Cooper would have agreed with me on that one. He once opined that given his druther's he'd take a Walker Colt over tactical tupperware. Take a look at Cooper's scout rifle too. It was a bolt action.
Accuracy wins firefights, not spray and pray.

[binabik]

I haven't read all the posts yet but i have read most. i am one of those inexperienced misinformed people and what i am planning for my survival carry is a .308 bolt action, 10 round mag with a 10 round mag in the stock. plenty of accuracy and i am mainly anticipating hunting for a group with it and ocationally people. i am how ever going to have a couple handguns. fiveseven since rounds are light, recoil is extremly light, gun is light, and it can stopa person easily. .22 for hunting and if everything else fails a combat weapon. a 10mm for animal defense and people defense because it is just that good. probably a 9mm pistol for scavenged ammo. chances are after the 10mm and five seven run out of ammo i will have to ditch them but hey they have good things about them when you are just starting out. well mainly the .308. i am planning on practicing so much with this i could it just about anything. i don't know how much ammo costs but if you assume say .25 cents a cartridge then i will want to spend about 25 bucks a week. it would be the only real rifle i practice with so i could become extremly good at it. and know it well. and accuracy would be way better in my inexperienced and misinformed opinion until i would need a pistol which is when you gotta fire fast and accuratly. oh well this is my opinion. i am now going to go play day of defeat and own people with k98s and enfields