Quote:
|
Well, how else do you suggest we test a battle rifles effectiveness?
|
You'd need a whole series of tests IMO.
A huge factor in a Battle Rifle's effectiveness, is it's reliability IMO. It doesn't matter how accurate it is, if it cant function well enough to save your life.
Also in battle you don't have time to let your barrel cool. You're likely shooting dozens of rounds at temps significantly higher than they would reach in a competition.
If I had to design a test for battle rifle effectiveness it'd likely consist of a few parts.
300 round dump this will test reliability and durability when the rifle is used at its hardest. Laying down cover fire, in a battle, for a period, is more than likely going to be just as hard on a rifle.
(While still hot)
rapid target firing 100m, 200m, and 500m on human sized targets, 10 rounds each.
Then the rifles go through mud, sand and water tests, where they are intentionally made excessively dirty, and after insuring the barrel is clear, fire 20 rounds at 100m.
even all that wouldn't be true proof that one rifle is more effective than another. There are so many factors, including the person behind the rifle. Some rifles are easier/faster to learn on. Some people just have a preference for a certain design.