Posted: 7/24/2012 8:57:09 PM EDT
|
Mean the most original form and not the most simple useful form?
:soconfused: |
| I never understood the whole KISS principle. A well thought out fighting/defense gun isn't KISS (as it would have a light and, if equipped with optics, BUISs) and a KISS gun sure as shit isn't a very good fighting/defensive gun given the options available today. |
|
http://jerkingthetrigger.com/blog/2012/06/11/the-cult-of-kiss/ KISS 2.0 = a quality AR-15, a quality RDS (and BUIS), a quality weapon light, a quality sling, and possibly a light weight free float hand guard the thought behind this is in the article......read it
|
|
Because people suffer the delusion that the most effective equipment 20 years ago (iron sights) is just as effective as the technology that has came about in the last 10 years.
Or they cling to it out of nostalgia. Or they want to be different, and can't admit it. Or because they are too cheap or can't afford better equipment, and make a fantasy up in their minds where modern technique is somehow inferior, so they must mentally masturbate to some idea where they are "riflemen," and somehow superior. Those are my observations on the issue. |
|
Today's version of a KISS rifle is different than twenty years ago. Today, having a scope/red dot and VFG with flash light is considered a KISS rifle.
I will still cling to my KISS A2 rifle because it was the type of weapon I was trained on and will keep it as such. |
|
Quoted:
http://jerkingthetrigger.com/blog/2012/06/11/the-cult-of-kiss/ KISS 2.0 = a quality AR-15, a quality RDS (and BUIS), a quality weapon light, a quality sling, and possibly a light weight free float hand guard the thought behind this is in the article......read it Now that is exactly what a fighting/defensive gun should be, everything you need and nothing you don't. |
|
Quoted: Because people suffer the delusion that the most effective equipment 20 years ago (iron sights) is just as effective as the technology that has came about in the last 10 years. Or they cling to it out of nostalgia. Or they want to be different, and can't admit it. Or because they are too cheap or can't afford better equipment, and make a fantasy up in their minds where modern technique is somehow inferior, so they must mentally masturbate to some idea where they are "riflemen," and somehow superior. Those are my observations on the issue. I just don't need it, and I don't like depending on batteries to sight my rifle. A back up sight isn't going to do it for me either. I do find a light useful though. I also don't care for the added weight of all the unnecessary crap people hang of their rifles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because people suffer the delusion that the most effective equipment 20 years ago (iron sights) is just as effective as the technology that has came about in the last 10 years. Or they cling to it out of nostalgia. Or they want to be different, and can't admit it. Or because they are too cheap or can't afford better equipment, and make a fantasy up in their minds where modern technique is somehow inferior, so they must mentally masturbate to some idea where they are "riflemen," and somehow superior. Those are my observations on the issue. I just don't need it, and I don't like depending on batteries to sight my rifle. A back up sight isn't going to do it for me either. I do find a light useful though. I also don't care for the added weight of all the unnecessary crap people hang of their rifles. Batteries for lights, but not sights? Get an ACOG. |
