The Vietcong beat the US Army with 40 year old Mosins, and Chinese surp SKS', and AK's. Nothing fancy. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Just sayin’.
The Viet Cong never beat the US military. They successfully held on long enough, and successfully got the media on their side enough, for US politicians to cave.
US losses were 58,000. Vietnamese losses were 1.4 million (that is one of the median estimates). The US military never lost a major engagement. MILITARILY, we spanked them. POLITICALLY, we lost.
When talking about the types of weapons the VC used (Mosins, SKS, AK, etc), I think a valid assuption would be the argument being made refers to the military effectiveness of them. Which was incredibly subpar, compared to what the US brought to the table, in terms of equipment and training. It's a very dangerous argument to say the VC were able to win with what they had, hence they were good enough. They paid a MASSIVE price, far in excess of what we did. That's a price none of us should be eager to pay.
While theoretically possible to have a rifle that is precise but not accurate, in reality that is not a thing. Exhibiting those characteristics would generally be an issue of the optic or the shooter.
In the world the Mk12 occupies, both are important, as "precision" is essentially "repeatability." A rifle can be accurate as long as I know it will generally send at least one round into a larger or smaller defined area. A rifle cannot be precise, unless it maintains accuracy over multiple rounds (and that "defined area" is generally smaller, when talking about precision).
You also trade off depth of field of view and contrast which helps with finding people faster for greater magnification.
The Vietcong beat the US Army with 40 year old Mosins, and Chinese surp SKS', and AK's. Nothing fancy. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Just sayin’.
The Viet Cong never beat the US military. They successfully held on long enough, and successfully got the media on their side enough, for US politicians to cave.
We disagree on what constitutes military victory then. Hanging on until your (stronger) opponent tires then withdraws is a still a victory after all.
US losses were 58,000. Vietnamese losses were 1.4 million (that is one of the median estimates). The US military never lost a major engagement. MILITARILY, we spanked them. POLITICALLY, we lost.
When talking about the types of weapons the VC used (Mosins, SKS, AK, etc), I think a valid assuption would be the argument being made refers to the military effectiveness of them. Which was incredibly subpar, compared to what the US brought to the table, in terms of equipment and training. It's a very dangerous argument to say the VC were able to win with what they had, hence they were good enough. They paid a MASSIVE price, far in excess of what we did. That's a price none of us should be eager to pay.
The Vietnamese losses were frightul, but even so whose flag flies over Ho Chi Minh City today? Winning ugly is still winning, right?
While theoretically possible to have a rifle that is precise but not accurate, in reality that is not a thing. Exhibiting those characteristics would generally be an issue of the optic or the shooter.
In the world the Mk12 occupies, both are important, as "precision" is essentially "repeatability." A rifle can be accurate as long as I know it will generally send at least one round into a larger or smaller defined area. A rifle cannot be precise, unless it maintains accuracy over multiple rounds (and that "defined area" is generally smaller, when talking about precision).