Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
You can argue all day long about caliber, but given the choice between 5.56 platforms, the guys on the ground in the SOF community want an m-4 style weapons system (though most will ask for a 416).
|
From your perspective, why is this a problem?
...
Also:
For those of you who aren't familiar with this popular
AR15 (M4) rant, check it out:
>>>LINK<<<. Be aware that it is only one side of the story. I tend to agree with a lot of it, though. Don't get me wrong: I like the AR and own several variants... I'm comfortable with it and it's universal in the US. It's lightweight, incredibly modular, and perhaps the most idiot proof and ergonomic shoulder arm I've used (aside from the charging handle, one of my biggest peeves). It is important to mention that my rifle, the same beatup Colt M4 that the guys in the OP article were using, never failed me while deployed (at ranges, test fires, guard, etc), although I was never allowed to use it in a firefight due to PeRF issues (oh, the fury). That being said, the M4 has its limitations. The design isn't perfect... it's really kinda flawed for a fighting gun. It's put together really tight, it craps on itself when it fires, has a bunch of small pieces, and the charging handle placement could use some improvement. It isn't so much that Eugene Stoner's AR design is total shit, it's that the US military can do a lot better for 2009, especially for those who spend a sizable amount of their time trading lead with the enemy out there.
...
Keep in mind that every nation has had issues with their primary service rifle. The British Army's
Enfield L85 was a real boxload of fail.