[Siddhi]

i don't think anyone would disagree with ye old yarn that the gun dosen't do the killing, the solider does. however, we are NOT talking about invididual kills but the STATISCAL EFFECT that different equipment and training has on overall lethality.

you say that you cannot think of many battles where the rifle made a difference, while i am not sure either i would guess that the israelis and south africans can offer you load of examples. personaly i can say that in bosnia- bihac in 1994 everyone was trying deperatly to get their hands on captured R-4s, as they were leagues more efficent then the AKM or AK-74. it is widely said that it even played a decisive role in 2 corps defense of the city but i not really able to provide a link for that...

...the point here is RANGE. when you have engagements over 200m accuracy varies greatly, and even well-trained soldiers will have problems compensating (you know those pitch-fork sights on an ak? can u compare that with a *designed* scoped rifle.) i don't play with the OOBs and haven't tried your suggestion - i am sure it is a good one - but i go on net effect. when a squad of infantry (exp.70) dug in on level ground and firing AUGs at a 3mph enemy squad with equal proficency *over open ground* 300m away you would expect a massacre - or in the very least 3-4 kills of an 8 man squad. presently i am averaging 1, 2 if very lucky. that simply does not work for me.

the irregulars in irak & somalia are not always hopeless with firearms - some of them by all accounts are as a good shot as you are - however REAL COMBAT condtions (not only vietnam jungles) are 300m engagements, not 50, and accuracy matters.

no mistake it is a great game but given the general grognard level in it as well as the importance of infantry combat more attention has to be paid to the rifle modeling.