Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
Well…They are playing the ‘if’ game. “If a soldier is armed only with a knife, and his opponent has a rifle with a fix bayonet”. The obviously solution is to have a gun with ammo vs gun with knife attached.
Figure, you carry extra 30 round magazine instead of a bayonet. Only shoot people at the distance you would be using your bayonet at. Depending on how well trained you are, you are probably going to use 2-3 rounds per kill. So that is 10-15 bad guys. You are telling me you envision a scenario where a soldier runs out of ammo, then bayonets *more than* 10-15 bad guys to death? And the likelihood of this scenario justifies picking a weapon based on its capacity to be armed with said bayonet?
> Pistol? used it or lost it, choose one
It isn’t more likely to lose a pistol than a bayonet. Again, 30+ rounds of ammo, vs 15 terrorist killing spree with the bayonet.
> What I can say though is that “bring another mag” is a cop-out and completely dismisses the premise they started with.
No it isn’t. There is only so much a soldier can carry. It makes more sense to carry ammo relative to a bayonet. Carrying less ammo so that you can carry something that you will only need if you run out of ammo is dumb.
The point being that the premise of “knife v bayonet” is retarded to begin with and rifles don’t need bayonet lugs.