Erik_MAA wrote:
So the cocking handle may be used more often that one would think.
I have made no argument for removing the cocking handle. Even caseless rounds need a bolt.
My question is, "When would you need to do this
and still have a hand on the fire control?"
Erik_MAA wrote:
As for being able to use the cocking handle off-hand, many training organizations advocate being able to run the cocking handle with the gun shouldered or otherwise oriented towards the threat and hand on the fire control. The logic here is you can get back on target after reloading or clearing a malfunction.
Again, current tacticool fashion trends, rather than any real reason. This logic ignores the possibility of various weapon failures or mishandles resulting in a negligent discharge and the killing of an innocent target. Weapon safety is of paramount importance in a military environment.
Erik_MAA wrote:
Many trainers don't like it because it obstructs your view of potential threats, takes your gun off target, and makes your gun easier for someone to take away from you.
Which sounds great if you're pretending to be John Wick and hefting a nice, lightweight MP5...
I would like to see these trainers heft a fully-firing Hero version of the Pulse Rifle and keep
that in the shoulder during a reload. These things aren't light.
Then again, if they all spend as much time in the gym as they do posting tacticool videos online, they'll heft that PR as if it were made of foam. Judging from the typical ripped bods bulging through their 5.11 Stalker Tacticool polo shirts, odds are high.
Erik_MAA wrote:
Or the evolution of the SA80 to the L85A2.
The SA80 is the weapon family. The L85 is the particular model.
Erik_MAA wrote:
The Pulse Rifle was designed based in part on what we knew about weapons and shooting methods in 1986.
So I guess nobody knew anything about shooting back then... ?
Erik_MAA wrote:
If it were 40 years later, and the USCM had experienced similar innovations, how might that change the PR design?
Depends what is deemed operationally necessary and a justifiable expenditure for the expected return. They won't want to change much, if they can help it. Better to retrofit existing PRs with mods that do not significantly alter the general design.
This includes slapping picatinny rails everywhere with stuff tacked on, as it means you'll also have to spend more money replacing packing cases, storage containers, weapons racks and APC rifle brackets, as well as redesigning the training, supply and logistics around all these extra parts, more ammo, spare batteries, webbing pouches, and a lot more than most people realise. It's never as simple as slapping something on because it looks cool...
Erik_MAA wrote:
I may be overthinking it, but let's be honest, overthinking is a big part of fandom, right?
Yes, but
within the confines of the established environment - In this case, a budget-conscious military in a corporation-dominated world of tendered contracts and lowest bidders.