The SMLEs were pretty accurate, at least the Aussie, Canuck, and British ones were. I'd guess the Indian ones were pretty good too, but haven't heard about them from folks that shot them first-hand, so...

Holland and Holland made a few by hand for Sniper duty. Their parts weren't interchangeable. Even between other rifles made by Holland and Holland.

Just some observations.



Actually, only pistols are disallowed. I'll agree that that's an unreasonable kneejerk reaction to one tragedy. However, I should point out that 99% of people didn't have or want a pistol *before* the ban. The idea of buying one for self defence was alien in our culture before any such ban came in.

Meanwhile, anyone can apply for a licence for a shotgun or a rifle. My nephew has had his own shotgun since he was 11.



They do? I think I might have noticed. It's national news around here when one person gets shot.



Says Citizen on my passport, and we have had a parlimentary democracy since 1649

would u please remind me, what police said after they "by mistake" killed innocent tourist..what was that..
4 shots in the head and torso..

What a lot of people don't understand in mistaken shootings is how fast you can shoot multiple times at someone before the guy who has realized it's a mistake can shout, "Cease fire! Cease fire!".

Many cops are informally trained that if you're at the point where you are shooting at someone, make sure they go down. No shooting to wound or warning shots, aim center mass and keep pulling the trigger until the perp has stopped twitching. Hesitating can give a merely wounded target a possible chance to shoot back, which endangers everyone.

The thing, of course, is to make SURE that you're actually AT the point you need to be pulling that trigger. Positively identifying a weapon on the target, a clear and present danger, etc. But that can be tricky - is that dark object the subject is pulling out of his coat a gun or a wallet? Is he turning away from you to conceal drawing a pistol, or is he merely doing so because he's terrified? Things can change in a split second and sometimes human beings make the wrong judgement call.

Of course, there are also just bad cops, that really don't deserve a badge.



-k

And how fast do you think Lonestar is to start shooting? or slow to stop...

I'm reminded of the common "stop resisting" that is shouted by LEOs using stun guns, even if "resisting" is just the twitching from the electricity.

Lets put it like that, there is a reason why some states have banned stunguns.
They turn police behaviour from bad to worse.
They are too easy to use, leading to police officers who are using them all the time and not thinking about the situation. Leading to dump cops in the end...

And unfortunately, while the penalties for nearly killing someone and actually killing someone are very similar, the likelihood of being convicted when the primary witness is beyond testifying varies greatly. Even if you're in the wrong when you start shooting, it's likely better policy to finish what you started. (I'm sure Lone Star is VERY familiar with this!)

@nezumi
Lets put it like that: It depends...

Generally it is true: Beeing the only witness is always a better deal. But finishing the other guy off might lead to some evidance which will probably break your neck.

...because standardization is nothing but communism (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

(also, it would spell an end to easy money with military procurement -- not going to happen)

Depending on the military it might. One of the items noted in the past 10 years is that the US military message boards have helped troops compare notes and buy the gear they feel they need (like what backpack is best, what shoes are best in Afghanistan). Not all of this is purchased through the official procurement system. It is leading to a major rethink as to how procurement in a modern army should work. Of course there are political and beurecratic obsticals to this.

Political is a big one, the defense budget authorization bill is usually full of spending authorizations that serve little purpose besides paying back a campaign supporter in the members district. At best these are overpriced but useful, at worst they are dangerous to the service that has them foisted on them.

Even the Mounties proved that when it was easier to just tase a guy rather than get a translator to see what his issue was.

And illegal laws that many DC establishment types won't touch.

And US stereotyped as intolerant of other languages...

Guess that answers the question of what would UCAS do.

We know the answer to that, Sub-Contract to the lowest bidder!

I was more referring to tazing or shooting without good cause, but sure that too I guess..

Sub-Contract to the Lowest Bidder who will use an improvised Taser.

More commonly referred to as "A Car Battery And Some Jumper Cables". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Or to make sure money is only spent domestically, to finance allies, because we've always done it like that...defence spending has nearly endless possibilities.

When our enlightened government could not sink more money into subsidizing the German shipyards due to competition regulations, they donated a couple of submarines to Israel. The shipyards got the same money, just that it was due to our special responsibility for the Jewish people, not to subsidise anything (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I don't think you have quite the same dynamic in the Bundestag we do in Congress, this would be more like keeping a crappy rifle made in Hessia because you are a ranking member and need the jobs in Frankfurt rather than allow a better rifle made in Nordrhine-Westfalia to be adopted and allow those jobs to move to Koln (apologies if my geography is messed up)

Sure, a system where MPs vote along party lines and not according to demands from their district/state has its advantages. And in other cases it's strictly worse, I would say both occurrences are quite evenly distributed.

And yes, you got the geography right.

Also to keep in mind, nothing gets things moving like bad publicity. If said rifle is defective, someone's going to say so and heads are going to roll (ok people fired, this is not the USSR). A congressman hears about it through the soldiers parents, spouse, what have you and can investigate the issue and take it to the press...it has happened.

IN SR, I don't think this happens though. For most Mega corp citizens, they would not have this recourse, nor would you have such a recourse in a non-democratic country. Troops take what they are issued, and if they want something better, they buy it out of their own funds. Also in the smaller merc groups, I imagine gear is BYOT (Bring your own toys). In larger merc groups, there is probably an equipment fee.

I still think they would have rules on procurement though. I mean, even with tacnets, it's better when the squad use the same weapons, this way you can diferentiate between what's enemy fire and friendly fire.

@stevebugge
We do not have that kind of money to fling around in our defance budget. It is about 1/20 of america. (Depending on when you look at it, it may be even less)
So there is not much to be made of...
So it is mostly about getting around arms restriction.

Those submarines where quite a fun thing.... Broke some armrestrictions in the process, as far as I can remember...

But there is a clear distinction to make, here: For corporate troops, the most efficient solution will always be bought: That is the one with the best value for money that meets key requirements. Which is why corpers won't generally be issued bad gear, but the main reason when they do get bad gear it will be cost (or in another case a company policy of using only stuff the corp produces.)

For UCAS or CAS soldiers, or any other more or less democratic country, there will be a procurement process not unlike now, which means all kinds of other influences get thrown into that equation: protectionism, favoritism, corruption, political bargains, etc. On the other hand the countries have to make more people happy than the corps, which means that they can't afford too much bad press. If a corporate "soldier" blabs about bad gear he'll simply be fired. If a military soldier does the same, and does it right, there might be a shitstorm of media coverage. So there are generally many influences to consider. All of which point to the fact that in spite of all provisions made, generally gear will not be perfect. However, in game terms this isn't so likely to show, because stuff is really similar. What's the difference between a poor gun and a good gun? A point of inherent RC, or a cheat-point of damage, maybe magazine capacity, or out of the box smart capabilities. Not to forget cost. Using an Alpha over an AK98 is largely a luxury decision - it will hardly impact measurable combat performance much. There is that iota of difference that makes out special troops: An alpha for the military, the P93 for security forces over the cheaper SMGs. But generally the big differences will be made by the mods that the common soldier gets: Gas vents, bipods, smartgun, etc.

With no shitstorm of media coverage about crappy weapons in current and past times why would there be in the future? About the only thing I've seen close to this is when it is big budget missile projects that have impossible goals. The media usually says the weapon is unfielded and doesn't work when in reality it is brand new so how could it have been fielded and it makes possible what was formerly impossible, though usually at low success ratios. The media doesn't care if soldiers get shitty rifles; I don't see how that would change in the future. However I could see private groups avoiding a company or product because of bad reviews from military users(enlisted personnel)