I don't understand what your point is here. Are you just sperging about a company that makes relatively cheap guns like when people sperg about low hanging fruit like hi-point or lel-tek? Or are you just a CZ fanboy? If it's the latter I won't let you people forget the CZ100 which is probably worse than anything hi-point or kel tek ever made.
That’s similar to what they said about the F4 Phantom when they didn’t put guns on it.
The day when the rifleman dies, is probably when humanity as a whole has been overtaken by machines.
For all the amazement of integration of drones in Ukraine (bizarre the U.S. has been lagging far behind in cheap drones) they still need infantry to push, clear, and hold points. Granted that war is marked by both sides not having clear overmatch with one another so it’s turned into a WW1 slog but it’s definitely proving you still need grunts.
It's a valid concern, the way Sig has been behaving makes everything they make suspect even if the underlying design is solid. I was planning on picking up a P365 and a P226 at some point and they're now indefinitely on hold. I wouldn't expect either to go off randomly, but I do expect them to have nagging QC issues until the company gets rid of Ron Cohen and makes QC a priority rather than an afterthought.
What is important right now is to invest in research, training, production capabilities etc. regarding drone production. I see plenty of these comments about "our military should acquire thousands of these small FPV drones, look at how effective they are in Ukraine!". And then what, they sit in a warehouse where they become obsolete in the next 6 months?
Not really. The original F-4 was the Air Force being high on its own supply with AIM-7 because they anticipated a conflict over Europe and the Arctic circle where they would engage oncoming fighters and bombers at range with radar guided missiles as they came over in the initial onslaught of WW3. They saw themselves as the air interceptor role with ground support and air superiority as secondary especially if they think they were going to eliminate the Soviet Air Force in the first days of WW3.
Glock doesn't make anything comparable to a P365. Their slimline guns are either single stack (43) or compacts (43X, 48 ). In a post many pages back, I outlined a list of every micro 9 I was aware of.
Sigbros on suicide watch.
I like the idea and it would be great for a DMR or machine gun but I don't think it would be helpful for general infantry. The optic is planned to be used with 6.8 so you wouldn't see meaningful drop or deflection until like 400 meters. Most infantry fighting is done at less than that so it provides little benefit. Furthermore, with reduced a ammunition because of the full sized cartridge it would be unwise to waste ammo with low probability shots at long range. Their are much better munitions out there for dealing with things far away than infantry small arms; thier role is for when you don't have the standoff distance for the good stuff. Most of the time I don't think the added weight, complexity, and cost would be worth it compared to conventional optics.
Hey, there's no reason to bring up the 100, we're all friends here.
I would say CZ keeps winning alongside glock but Colt took over CZ polymer production, so I wouldn't buy a polymer CZ to save my life.
Keep in mind the M7 (which is a shitrod) is not always going to be using the spicy level 4 piercing ammo. Using a varitey of ammo types means the range finder can give you a solution dialed into what you have loaded. Very cool, and very nice. Your DMR is likely using a lot more glass than the LPVO attached to the FC, and is going to be better trained, while 100% useful and I don't disagree with the utility there, you are going to get less of a jump in ability simply because the gap is already closed some.
