User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:08:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...As far as BILLIONS of dollars? There are 500,000 M4s in inventory according to the report. Replacing ALL of them wouldn't cost one Billion. How much money do the armed forces spend on stupid crap that's just flushed down the toilet? Are you saying we can't afford to upgrade the weapon issued to every soldier more than once in 50 years?... This times a billionty. At retail pricing, they could replace the entire inventory every year for under half a billion dollars. That probably falls within the accounting margin for error for mind-boggling projects like the F-35 or whatnot. I'm not saying that the M4 needs replacing, but not replacing it because of money is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:32:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This times a billionty. At retail pricing, they could replace the entire inventory every year for under half a billion dollars. That probably falls within the accounting margin for error for mind-boggling projects like the F-35 or whatnot. I'm not saying that the M4 needs replacing, but not replacing it because of money is ridiculous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...As far as BILLIONS of dollars? There are 500,000 M4s in inventory according to the report. Replacing ALL of them wouldn't cost one Billion. How much money do the armed forces spend on stupid crap that's just flushed down the toilet? Are you saying we can't afford to upgrade the weapon issued to every soldier more than once in 50 years?... This times a billionty. At retail pricing, they could replace the entire inventory every year for under half a billion dollars. That probably falls within the accounting margin for error for mind-boggling projects like the F-35 or whatnot. I'm not saying that the M4 needs replacing, but not replacing it because of money is ridiculous. It wouldnt be money it would be logistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:32:20 PM EDT
[#3]
At retail pricing, they could replace the entire inventory every year for under half a billion dollars. That probably falls within the accounting margin for error for mind-boggling projects like the F-35 or whatnot. I'm not saying that the M4 needs replacing, but not replacing it because of money is ridiculous. You forget the logistics and re-training end of it. Closer to a Billion by the time you are done. And then you have a half a miillion rifles that lack parts commonality with the M-16A2's and A4's. Plus, who says the replacements are going to be nearly as cheap as what we are paying per copy for the M-4? now we are looking at a Billion and a Half. Then we ask ourselves if replacing all this and going thru the headache is worth the marginal gains or if that Bil and a Half could give us more juice for the squeeze on better body armor or more portable mortars, etc......... At that point, you start to see why R0N thinks the way he does looking at the big picture. Unless the replacement rifle offers SINGIFICANT improvements like a better caliber, laser beams, phased plasma in the 40 watt range, it simply isn't worth it. Much more cost effective to try and tweak whatever minor shortcomings remain in the M-16 series than to go down a different path at this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:48:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Well, I meant literally replacing the M4s with more M4s, not buying a replacement system.
But lets make some assumptions. A replacement system would cost $1000 a pop. We would need 500,000 of them. The logistics tail of a new system (bits for armorers, training material, etc), cost an additional $1000 per unit. You're still coming in at a billion. Shit, at 2 billion, for such a monumental undertaking, it would be the bargain of the millennia for US defense procurement. Thats what, 2 LCS and change? Again, I'm not saying that the M4 bears replacing with a new system, but if it did, price shouldn't be a factor. Of all the things we blow money on, I don't see a few billion to change out the primary rifle of the US armed forces as being too much. That it is questionable if anything is worth replacing the M4s with is another matter... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:48:57 PM EDT
[#5]
So assuming a better rifle is out there, we shouldn't do it because it might cost a billion dollars? We can piss away tens of billions of dollars away on stupid crap, but God forbid we actually try to provide our infantry with something better?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:50:46 PM EDT
[#6]
The right people didn't get the right amount of kickback.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:55:27 PM EDT
[#7]
You're still coming in at a billion. Shit, at 2 billion, for such a monumental undertaking, it would be the bargain of the millennia for US defense procurement. Thats what, 2 LCS and change? Bargain? What does it get you that you don't already have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:56:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The right people didn't get the right amount of kickback. Who exactly is the right people in this conspiracy theory of yours? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:57:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So assuming a better rifle is out there, we shouldn't do it because it might cost a billion dollars? We can piss away tens of billions of dollars away on stupid crap, but God forbid we actually try to provide our infantry with something better? What about the opportunity cost of that billion you just flushed down the toilet for a likely immesurable improvement in actual real world capabilities? What about the improved mortars or lighter, strong body armor? Stuff that would likely have a quantifiable improvement in the survivability and killing power of an Infantry Battalion. You are chasing Gnats instead of Eagles. Like I said, a new rifle needs to bring SIGNIFICANT improvements in capabilities and anything 5.56mm will not ever meet that definition unless it can be had for half the price of our current weapons systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:58:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wouldnt be money it would be logistics. Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4?  Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:00:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4? Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOLQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It wouldnt be money it would be logistics. Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4? Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOLThere are likely billions in spare parts, weapons racks, armorer's training, publications, etc already in the system that would no longer be usable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:04:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bargain? What does it get you that you don't already have? Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're still coming in at a billion. Shit, at 2 billion, for such a monumental undertaking, it would be the bargain of the millennia for US defense procurement. Thats what, 2 LCS and change? Bargain? What does it get you that you don't already have? If it were a new system? I'd hope reliability, reduced weight, increased accuracy, along those lines. Not sure that anything fits the bill yet, but if it did, whip out the checkbook. For just more M4s? I am of the opinion that there shouldn't be worn out small arms in the armed forces. Don't have to replace them ALL, but for Pete's sake, replace the worn out stuff. Pittances compared to other things the armed forces blow money on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:05:10 PM EDT
[#13]
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:14:47 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are likely billions in spare parts, weapons racks, armorer's training, publications, etc already in the system that would no longer be usable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It wouldnt be money it would be logistics. Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4? Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOLThere are likely billions in spare parts, weapons racks, armorer's training, publications, etc already in the system that would no longer be usable. Again, like the military has never phased any system out over time? Not like when they changed to the M16 it happened instantly. And hell, with the way our government likes to supply small arms to small nations and other groups around the world for support, all those M4's and parts would be given away before Obama drops off his change of address card at the post office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:21:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So assuming a better rifle is out there, we shouldn't do it because it might cost a billion dollars? We can piss away tens of billions of dollars away on stupid crap, but God forbid we actually try to provide our infantry with something better? are insignificant compared to radios and artillery.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:21:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:31:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. That's funny considering it was never even submitted for testing. Tell us how you know this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:34:06 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. You're being sarcastic right? Tell me you're being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:52:00 PM EDT
[#19]
The first problem I have is ammo, Im not saying the m855 or m855a1 won't kill baddies, but I think it has been proven that the M4 struggles to push the lethality of a frangible round like the m855 with its limited velocity. So saying screw the hague convention and giving our troops the ability to kill shit they shoot at might go a long ways. I think this would be even more true in the pistol realm with the search for an M9 replacement
Also, there are TONS of retrofits available for M4s that could increase reliability ergos, and perhaps performance, but on the same platform, and would be much easier to be phased in. New coatings such as melonite Piston systems with adjustable gas blocks Different rifling and coatings that "could" increase velocity Furniture and replacement parts Ammo would be a much better place to spend some money, and Im not saying any one of these is going to completely change the ar platform and make it any better than an A1. But it seems as though with all the crazy stuff we have access to in the civilian world the military could easily come up with a modernization plan for the M4/M16 to make it a more effective weapon, at an incredible cheaper cost than switching to a whole new gun, and without completely retraining instructors, armorers, and soldiers |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:56:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:05:27 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. You have your timelines mixed up dude-that hasn't happened yet. For the rest of you, this is the so-called time traveler from what-2048? Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:17:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have your timelines mixed up dude-that hasn't happened yet. For the rest of you, this is the so-called time traveler from what-2048? Nick Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. You have your timelines mixed up dude-that hasn't happened yet. For the rest of you, this is the so-called time traveler from what-2048? Nick Oh, that makes sense then. He must be from the Hitlerverse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:19:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Length?  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance. Length? Girth |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:06:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. Really?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:25:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so if the M4 were a bank, it would be 'too big to fail'? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it. Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. so if the M4 were a bank, it would be 'too big to fail'? Perfect analogy for this line of "thinking." Build one less F35, buy all new rifles, profit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:16:12 PM EDT
[#26]
its modular... just replace the parts that suck with better... how hard is that?
cant really change from 223 to other easily do to NATO logistics.. but the bullet can be improved.. and parts can be as well |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:26:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:35:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
its modular... just replace the parts that suck with better... how hard is that? cant really change from 223 to other easily do to NATO logistics.. but the bullet can be improved.. and parts can be as well An armorer adjustable gas block, factory free-float rail, factory ambi safety and stronger receiver extension would solve about 90% of the M4s shortcomings. I'd also suggest a longer gas system, as it does improve service life, but that won't happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:35:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. What if it was a short deployment? Say you just went to JBT a rancher for a few days, and probably wouldn't have to shoot any dogs? Would it be ok then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:36:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. Cite? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:38:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An armorer adjustable gas block, factory free-float rail, factory ambi safety and stronger receiver extension would solve about 90% of the M4s shortcomings. I'd also suggest a longer gas system, as it does improve service life, but that won't happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
its modular... just replace the parts that suck with better... how hard is that? cant really change from 223 to other easily do to NATO logistics.. but the bullet can be improved.. and parts can be as well An armorer adjustable gas block, factory free-float rail, factory ambi safety and stronger receiver extension would solve about 90% of the M4s shortcomings. I'd also suggest a longer gas system, as it does improve service life, but that won't happen. How does a free float rail, different safety, and receiver extension prevent typical stoppages? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:42:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does a free float rail, different safety, and receiver extension prevent typical stoppages? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
its modular... just replace the parts that suck with better... how hard is that? cant really change from 223 to other easily do to NATO logistics.. but the bullet can be improved.. and parts can be as well An armorer adjustable gas block, factory free-float rail, factory ambi safety and stronger receiver extension would solve about 90% of the M4s shortcomings. I'd also suggest a longer gas system, as it does improve service life, but that won't happen. How does a free float rail, different safety, and receiver extension prevent typical stoppages? The adjustable gas system will help with that somewhat, and also improve service life, especially with M855A1. Most malfunctions outside of parts breakage or over-gassed guns come from operator error, foreign debris, faulty magazines and faulty ammunition. A new platform is unlikely to remove these factors or even significantly alter them. The safety is a needed upgrade, unrelated to reliability. The receiver extension is the weakest part of the gun and most likely part to become damaged from rough handling. Improvement is possible. The rail is a good idea for modularity, which the M4s competitors harp on. Frankly good arguments can be made against it as a standard item though. All of those things added to an M4 would probably cost the same as some of the competitors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 12:21:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Hell, if you want to go that route. Then, upgrade the lower and make it fully ambidextrous like the one LWRC offers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 1:10:02 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know this for fact that gun C was an ak47 and outperformed it by a vast amount. They used the arsenal variant which is higher end AK that is essentially the same rifle the russian military uses. The rest of us know gun "C" was a 416, you however don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 1:14:28 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4? Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOLQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It wouldnt be money it would be logistics. Logistics would be the problem in replacing the M4? Because the Army doesn't know anything about logistics? Because they have never phased in a new weapon system to replace another before? LOLYou made a big leap there friend. Of course the Army (as well as the other branches) could do it. As I said earlier, one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement. None of the samples submited achieved this so it's not worth the logistical hoops that would have to be jumped to make the change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 1:23:16 AM EDT
[#36]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
See "1911" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 1:50:38 AM EDT
[#37]
found it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 2:21:14 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryGood thing he tied his sights together! Imagine how much of a clusterfuck it would have been to turn it in missing the front sight block! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 2:29:57 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryDamn Rangers breaking their shit all the time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:24:46 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:28:05 AM EDT
[#41]
Geez I was late to this, what were the other carbines?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:32:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. They do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:35:59 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about the opportunity cost of that billion you just flushed down the toilet for a likely immesurable improvement in actual real world capabilities? What about the improved mortars or lighter, strong body armor? Stuff that would likely have a quantifiable improvement in the survivability and killing power of an Infantry Battalion. You are chasing Gnats instead of Eagles. Like I said, a new rifle needs to bring SIGNIFICANT improvements in capabilities and anything 5.56mm will not ever meet that definition unless it can be had for half the price of our current weapons systems. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So assuming a better rifle is out there, we shouldn't do it because it might cost a billion dollars? We can piss away tens of billions of dollars away on stupid crap, but God forbid we actually try to provide our infantry with something better? What about the opportunity cost of that billion you just flushed down the toilet for a likely immesurable improvement in actual real world capabilities? What about the improved mortars or lighter, strong body armor? Stuff that would likely have a quantifiable improvement in the survivability and killing power of an Infantry Battalion. You are chasing Gnats instead of Eagles. Like I said, a new rifle needs to bring SIGNIFICANT improvements in capabilities and anything 5.56mm will not ever meet that definition unless it can be had for half the price of our current weapons systems. Look at the military budget and that's in the noise floor. There's no 1:1 tradeoff; spending more money on the rifle does not mean less money in other weaponry. Who are you to say whether it's significant or not? Honestly - I don't know if it's significant or not either since there's not a whole lot of data one way or another and rifle "C" might be a chimera, but if it exists and the data is real, then our soldiers deserve a better rifle. Hell, if it becomes standard issue and the semiauto variant starts being offered for sale, we'll all just jump on the "ARxx.com" bandwagon and live happily ever after. It doesn't mean our beloved AR15's are useless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:36:40 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They do? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. M 16s rarely break bolts...M4s regularly break bolts. That's a clue. They do? Yep. They are hard on bolts. Best replaced every 2K on your go to gun if useing Mil Spec bolts IMO. there will be plenty of people who will say they get a 6K life from a bolt in an M4, and it is true. But I have seen them break within 3K. and that is semi auto M4forgeries. One of the reasons the mid length has been so big in civi and LE ciricles is they are easier on innards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:47:44 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
...................... Yep. They are hard on bolts. Best replaced every 2K on your go to gun if useing Mil Spec bolts IMO. there will be plenty of people who will say they get a 6K life from a bolt in an M4, and it is true. But I have seen them break within 3K. and that is semi auto M4forgeries. One of the reasons the mid length has been so big in civi and LE ciricles is they are easier on innards. Never knew this. Why have my bolts lasted so much longer (all semi auto)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 3:57:43 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never knew this. Why have my bolts lasted so much longer (all semi auto)? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...................... Yep. They are hard on bolts. Best replaced every 2K on your go to gun if useing Mil Spec bolts IMO. there will be plenty of people who will say they get a 6K life from a bolt in an M4, and it is true. But I have seen them break within 3K. and that is semi auto M4forgeries. One of the reasons the mid length has been so big in civi and LE ciricles is they are easier on innards. Never knew this. Why have my bolts lasted so much longer (all semi auto)? The bolt assembly is a consumable part on an AR. It always has been. I figure they went with such a short gas system designed for a 10" barrel for the M4 to overgass and aid in extraction when the bolt and extension gets full of crud. The side effect of that is put alot of stess on the bolt. How many rounds do you have on your bolts? I have several mil spec bolts break in the 3-5K round range with 16" semi auto M4forgeries.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:10:06 AM EDT
[#47]
The test was 'fixed' from the start.
A few ARFCOMers have infiltrated the group in charge. Typical of the government though .... when a competing contractor gets close to your favored contractor you change the test parameters to favor your favorite. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:17:24 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought that was the ALS from Battlefield 4  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't believe the depth of derp in this thread. We all know exactly what gun C was: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/63/bc/7263bcccb06974343b6cd6ca3b767a12.jpg Ooooh! Nice!!! What is that/who makes it? borderline vaporware I thought that was the ALS from Battlefield 4 Which is a Shrike, I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:23:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........................ The bolt assembly is a consumable part on an AR. It always has been. I figure they went with such a short gas system designed for a 10" barrel for the M4 to overgass and aid in extraction when the bolt and extension gets full of crud. The side effect of that is put alot of stess on the bolt. How many rounds do you have on your bolts? I have several mil spec bolts break in the 3-5K round range with 16" semi auto M4forgeries.. Ok..........if that is how it is than that is how it is. I don't really know how many rounds I have on a couple of my older carbines..............it might be getting to 5K but I really don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:32:57 AM EDT
[#50]
The military considers bolts repair parts (class IX) not consumables
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
