For me it was select fire, sniper rifles, both from HK.
So the first one I sorta get, the G3-SG1...
You select G3 production rifles that are particularly accurate and install a set trigger group and add optics, which results in the most accurate G3 package you can put together without reinventing the wheel. This was largely a response to Munich a proved a capable platform when messing with Baader Meinhoff / RAF types.
But since they took the time to redesign the trigger group with a set trigger option, why keep the select fire option at all? If you do go "full auto" you are going to dramatically shorten the "inherently accurate" aspects of the rifle in question.
The comes the MSG90, sniper rifle.
And it's a "designed as" sniper rifle with a tuned trigger, reinforced receiver and optics but it's still a swing down lower. And while most, especially A1 variants have a 0-1 trigger group, you can swap in a standard G3 or even a G3-SG1 trigger group resulting in yet another select fire sniper rifle. I think I even recall early MSG90s with SEF groups.
Just seems odd. The PSG1 for example will NOT accept a swing down trigger group, so no way to have a select fire PSG1, which would make sense. But still has most of the other benefits of the G3 such as accepting 20 round standard magazines.
Then reading Chris Kyle's book, apparently he used to take his Knights M110 upper and drop it on his standard issue M4 lower. Now clearly he was an effective shot, but why on earth would you do that? The M4 stock is pretty much agreed on to be a less accurate platform than a fixed stock and it really only makes sense on a carbine type rifle.
And there are a couple other examples that existed in the 80s and 90s that were sniper weapons but had a full auto capacity. Why? I can't think of two things that have so little to do with each other.
I can see dropping optics on a G3 or FAL and in semi trying to place "your best accurate" shot for something important, but the reverse doesn't seem as practical.
Bookmarks