The Aussies

Am I missing something or is this weapon hot garbage? The Horizontal recoil is like nothing I’ve ever seen and the sight arrangement is just awful. I mean just looking at the thing makes me wonder what the Australians were thinking; or if indeed, they were thinking at all when they accepted the design.

Hipfire machine.

That’s what this gun is, Plus if you get used to the sights and tap fire, You’ll do just fine with it.

While we’re on the subject of Australian equipment; why is the Lee-Enfield Mk. III BR3? Yeah, it’s got a (relatively) high magazine capacity, but that’s about all it has going for it. The No. IV Mk. I has the keep zoomed while working the bolt thing going on, which justifies the inclusion of a bolt action in BR3, but I have a hard time justifying the other one, seems over-tiered, to me.

Most bolt actions with high mags are put at B.R 3 (VG.2, SMLE, LEE.)

All those bolt actions have 10 round mags.

I mean, fair enough, I guess. Although with the performance of the No.IV Mk.I an argument could be made just put it in BR4.

No.

At B.R 4 it would never be used.

The lee, SMLE, VG.2 would make every other Rifle at B.R 1-2 look terrible.

In 10 rounds you can kill a whole squad (up to 9 men) without reloading while someone with a type 38 rifle has to reload after 5. Most squads are around four to six guys.

I’ll admit; I’m not a math guy(not that advanced math is required; I just tend to think more intuitively). Just seems questionable to me putting a rifle that was around pre-WWI in BR3. I get where you’re coming from, although I think it assumes a lot.

Also, with the No.IV Mk.I at BR3; why would anyone use the Mk. III?