Yes Clark,
I've fired an M-16. In 20 years serving in the Army I expect that
I've fired several hundred thousand rounds through an M-16. Actually it is
quite a good analogy. I found that I could reliably and consistently hit a
target the size of the bottom of a coffee can at 100 meters with a German G-3
over iron sights. I don't know that it would be just as easy to hit a
target half that size at the same range. I am also unsure that I
could hit either target shooting from the hip. I know for a FACT
that I would be hard pressed to hit either target at the same range with a .45
or 9MM handgun sights or no. There are many other variables that would
increase or decrease my chances of hitting any given target. Size is but
one.
As for being relaxed about the scale thing, I am. I've given up on
the whole matter. As I've said before, I accept the rules as they
are. Period. I was only thinking out loud, sharing my thoughts with
others.
Here is another thought:
Again, just a thought. That is a T-34 compared to a Maus.
Paul H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Ward Jr" <ki4gyt-at-gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Maus [TANKS]
> 200 yards to hit a standing man-sized target, compared to a
> half-a-man-sized target. From my shooting record book from Parris
> Island (yes, I still have it), I did BETTER against the half-sized
> target (100% hits vice 90% against the full-size).
>
> Just relax about the scale thing. It's easy, take a deep breath :)
>
> For the record, both the M60A1 and the FT-17 are being built to 1/6
> scale. This makes the FT-17 two feet long. RAR. Like a chihuahua
> yipping and snapping at the heels of the M60A1 (or saints forfend
> Aahz's T-35) (side note, I'll have to fly out to Aahz's place
> sometime to get a pic of the FT next to the T-35 :)