Direct quote from a book I just read regarding the L1A1 and its development.

"The axis of the bore was as low as possible without turning to a straight stock with raised sights.  The latter option was rejected by FN, since they considered that it would prevent the firer making the best use of cover, which has subsequently proved to the disadvanatage of "staright-line" weapons such as the M16."

What do you guys think of this statement?

I think you can research stuff to death but in the end it all comes down to you.

Yeah that could be an issue... but then, a 30 round mag sticking out the bottom will prevent you from getting as low as possible on the ground too.  

How much of a difference is there in the site height though, 1"?  I guess this would be one reason to not mount optics way up on the carry handle.

How often do you have to take cover low enough that it would be an issue, compared with how often the straight line design comes in handy?

Quoted: Yeah that could be an issue... but then, a 30 round mag sticking out the bottom will prevent you from getting as low as possible on the ground too.   How much of a difference is there in the site height though, 1"?  I guess this would be one reason to not mount optics way up on the carry handle.

Lie down and shoot on your side.

DM1975 said it all.

We did alot of this type of shooting at the carbine class I took at Blackwater.  Shooting over walls, through holes, on stairs.  It's different, but not impossible.

Crazy, I was just talking to a Hardcore FAL Fan (I'm a FAL and AR15 owner myself.... but he's the type that has a vehement agression against AR's... you all know the type he
Him: "You know, using an AR-15, you have a higher chance of dying"

Me: "...what?"

Him: "Sight height/bore axis, you have to expose more of your head when firing"

Me: "Seems like semantics, but whatever"  (thinking in my head "Well, that problem is solved with individual body armor, and above all else, training")

But I wasn't up for an argument, so I didn't push it.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, it seems like a dumb/negligable problem that could easily be solved with the use of different things, such as training, body armor, training, different sights, and training?  

There are alot of fucktards out there that will quote you out of every book out there on what is "the" gospel for self defense but until you have been there and done some of it yourself, whether in training or real life you just don't have a clue.

maybe
bu i would think that a flatop w/ aimpoint would be just as low

but i'll take thje m-4 jsut to be safe

One thing I must note about this book is that the author is British and it was published in Britain.

Or you could do like those GIs in that Nam clip, where they keep their head down in the hole, stick the rifle above the rim, and dump the mag.

Quoted: Crazy, I was just talking to a Hardcore FAL Fan (I'm a FAL and AR15 owner myself.... but he's the type that has a vehement agression against AR's... you all know the type ) yesterday, and he was telling me the same thing. Him: "You know, using an AR-15, you have a higher chance of dying" Me: "...what?" Him: "Sight height/bore axis, you have to expose more of your head when firing"

Ask him when and where he got is CIB. Otherwise his rap is just gunshop commando crappola.