Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/24/2002 6:24:36 PM EDT
Front page of the Marine Corps Times at the Exchange today, US Marines choose the M16A4 over the M4. I bought a copy, I'll read it and pass on the juicy details. The web site for the Marine Corps Times is a week later than the store issue, it is talking about the Marines loosing the .50 cal machine gun, the Ma-Duce.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:27:26 PM EDT
Would the cost of changing over have anything to do with it?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:36:06 PM EDT
M16A4 - Good choice. Getting rid of Ma-Duce - WHAT THE FUCK IS MY BELOVED CORPS DOING!!?? Never, ever give up 1100 meters of grazing fire! Never! That thunder you hear is Chesty Puller rolling over in his grave.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:53:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By M4_Aiming_at_U: Would the cost of changing over have anything to do with it?
View Quote
Effective range. There's not that much of a price difference between the two and we all know how the Marines are about marksmanship.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 6:59:29 PM EDT
GIVE UP THE MA DEUCE!!?! HOLY SHITBALLS!! WHY!???!?!?!?!? -Spaceman
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:00:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:00:10 PM EDT
Maybe this will convince certain board members that carbines are cheesy.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:04:56 PM EDT
What's an M16A4?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:05:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SpacemanSpiff: GIVE UP THE MA DEUCE!!?! HOLY SHITBALLS!! WHY!???!?!?!?!? -Spaceman
View Quote
Biggest mistake since giving up the M1911A1.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:10:08 PM EDT
This is not a big suprise. It would have been a real shock if the Marines had gone to the M4. The more important question is-what optic will they choose to mount on it? But whats this about getting rid of the M2? They just bought a large batch of .50cal MGs for helicopters and they are going to turn around and throw them away?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:12:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:13:57 PM EDT
Boy colts not going to be happy about this. That would have been a huge contract.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:15:39 PM EDT
I checked and its a damned subscription article so I cant be sure but I think the Marines got to try out the OCSW.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:18:01 PM EDT
They could still be Colts. They and FN both bid for each contract.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:18:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 7:22:12 PM EDT by 7IDL]
the Ma-Deuce started out as the Model 1921 in 1923... She' goin on 80yo, and they want to do away with her? [b]blasphemy !!![/b] and what the hell do they think will replace her? they thought the 9mm would replace the .45... NOT! [img]http://www.dandreasguncase.com/images/specials/M2.jpg[/img] [b]M16A4[/b]
M16A4 Rifle is a standard M16A2 Rifle with a flat top upper receiver and detachable carrying handle. The flat top upper receiver has an integral rail that will be utilized (when the carrying handle is removed) to mount optical devices to the weapon. The M16A4 Rifle in combination with the M5 Rail Adapter forms the Modular Weapon System (rifle version) which provide soldiers the flexibility to configure their weapons with those accessories required to fulfill an assigned mission. There are no differences between the internal dimensions of the M16A2 Rifle and the M16A4 Rifle.
View Quote
[img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/M16a4.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:20:30 PM EDT
M16A4 Who gets the M16A4? Infantry Marines around the Corps. When? Possible years end, depending on the contractor. What's new? The M16A4 differs only slightly from the M16A2 in that it is a flat top and it has a rail system built into the hand guards. Two years of testing.... The M16A4 was more reliable than the lighter, shorter, M4 carbine.... Marine Commandant General James Jones chose the M16A4.... Marine Officials refused to release the results of the final round of testing. The decision came as a "complete supprise" to Colt.... Colt faulted the Marine Corps testing.... Colt was "not allowed to participate".... Some Marines could still be issued M4's.... Light Armored Vehicle crews use the M4... Recon Marines use the M4.... Marine Corps official says "Marines sort of liked the M4"..... Reports out of Afghanistan claim that the M4 lacks the stopping power of the M16A2..... Ma-Duce: [img]http://www.marinetimes.com/content/editorial/editart/marinecover.jpg[/img] "Put to the grunt test That World War II-era .50-caliber machine gun you’ve been using may soon become a museum piece. And that backbreaking MK19 grenade machine gun? It could be a thing of the past pretty soon as well. (For subscribers only)"
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:27:50 PM EDT
Put to the grunt test Gunners try out five of the latest weapons By Christian Lowe Times staff writer That World War II-era .50-caliber machine gun you’ve been using may soon become a museum piece. And that backbreaking MK19 grenade machine gun? It could be a thing of the past pretty soon as well. In their place the Corps is looking at a blazing-fast heavy machine gun and a bantam-weight grenade launcher. But before the orders are placed, officials want to make sure the weapons pass the “grunt test.” So who do you call to find out? Marine gunners, that’s who. These experts have more infantry weapons knowledge in their trigger fingers than most Marines acquire in a lifetime. Just ask one. So when 27 gunners got together Aug. 22 and 23 at Quantico, Va., for the 2002 Gunner Symposium, officials from the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab decided to ask the experts what they thought about some of the experimental weapons the lab is working with. The gunners were invited to fire the weapons and see if the money and time devoted to testing them has been well spent. As the gunners, some chewing on fat cigars, approached the weapons, it was clear they were not going to be easily impressed. They shook gun mounts, tested rifle actions and eyeballed scopes. All the while, you could hear the exam-day tension in the voices of the Marines showing off their experimental weapons. They clearly wanted to impress the gunners. The array of weapons the gunners tested ran the gamut from small personal defense weapons to the intimidating and powerful .50-caliber machine gun. None of the weapons tested is in production, so some of the gunners’ suggestions and concerns could be helpful as the weapons are refined, lab officials said. “When you get 27 of the 40-some gunners talking, what they say holds a lot of weight,” said Capt. Ed Rapisarda, operations officer for Project Metropolis, the lab’s urban combat tactics initiative. “If they think something’s good, then that’s a good thing.” After spraying the dilapidated tanks downrange with machine-gun fire and plinking a few silhouette targets with sniper-like precision, the gunners generally seemed impressed. But these straight-talkers also saw room for improvement. A new .50-cal The M3M .50-caliber weapon system initially was intended as a replacement for the helicopter-mounted M2 machine gun. Not only is the M3M capable of firing 1,100 rounds per minute — double the M2’s rate — it also is more accurate than the 1940s-era gun, lab officials said. Using a specialized mounting system, the M3M, built by FN Herstal, makes it easier for helicopter door gunners to maintain tighter shot groups. The lab has tested the Belgian-made system for two years, Rapisarda said. The M3M also might have a role on the ground. A unique Humvee mounting system tested at the Quantico range garnered good results and feedback from gunners. More accurate shot groupings resulted from the stability of the mount, coupled with the smooth-handling pintle, or pivot system, said CWO4 Terry Walker, a gunner with 2nd Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, N.C. Firing the M2 from a Humvee often results in scattered groups of shots because of vehicle move-ment, he said. But another gunner, after straddling the machine gun and firing a few rounds, caused the M3M to malfunction. The bolt jammed on a round, prompting shakes of the head from the gunners watching. Testers blamed a bad batch of ammo and quickly were able to replace the jammed firing mechanism. But even the guns’ selling points could be a drawback in the field, one gunner said. “I think it’s got too high a rate of fire,” said CWO4 Pat Woellhof, a gunner with 2nd Marines at Camp Lejeune. “You’ll burn too much ammo when you fire it. It isn’t ‘grunt proof.’” Lab officials, however, say the M3M and its mounts are far from complete. The lab’s final report on the gun is in the works, then it’s up to Corps officials to decide whether to buy it. A call for new sights, a new ammo feed system and other improvements are likely to be included in the final report , Rapisarda said. Lighter grenade launcher Carrying the Vietnam-era MK19 grenade machine gun into action can be backbreaking job. So the lab is looking for a replacement that’s not only significantly lighter, but more accurate. What they found is a portable 40 mm grenade machine gun with a computerized fire-control system that uses video-imaging and a laser range finder to deliver a “first-shot-on-target” capability, officials say. Built by General Dynamics Armament Systems, the MK47 weighs 38.6 pounds, about half the weight of the MK19. The increased mobility and accuracy add up to a more lethal package for an infantry battalion’s supporting arms, said Maj. John America, chief of the lab’s ground-combat branch of the technology division. As with the M3M, the MK47 drew generally positive reviews from the gunners. But the high-tech sighting system and fire-control computer worried one gunner that it, too, might not be grunt-proof. “I like the weight and accuracy,” said CWO2 Gene Bridgman of 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, at Twentynine Palms, Calif. But he was skeptical of the laser-video sight: “You don’t want to overcomplicate things.” Seeing red Other technologies showcased for the gunners included a compact submachine gun intended for aircraft and tank crews, as well as components for a Squad Advanced Marksman rifle, a follow-on to the M14 Designated Marksman Rifle. The SAM is intended to provide accurate fire out to 600 yards. It has an M16A2 lower receiver with a standard flat-top M1913 rail-type upper receiver. Its stainless steel barrel and full-length design allow it to accommodate a variety of optical devices. Gunners were given the opportunity to fire a modified M16A2 rifle with the Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight, a rail-mounted scope built by Michigan-based Trijicon. The sight uses an illuminated red chevron to determine the range to target, which lab testers believe is more accurate and easier to use than a red-dot or red-donut style sighting mechanism. The chevron was a bit difficult to get used to, one gunner said. “Coming from the sniper community, I liked the red dot better,” said CWO2 Kevin Crandell, a gunner with 1st Battalion, 7th Ma-rines. The Warfighting Lab hopes to have a final design for the sight and the SAM by the end of 2003, an official said.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 7:55:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 8:03:08 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Oh I see. They aren't getting rid of the Browning .50. If that gun on the cover is the M3M mentioned in the article its the XM218/GAU-16 helicopter door gun mounted on a ground tripod. And THAT has every apperance of a recreation of the light barrel .50cals used in turrets and hand held mounts on World War II bombers. They had only a 36in barrel though instead of the 45in of the M2HB. Wonder how much range they loose from that? I guess they are trying out TA11 or TA31 ACOGS, shame the author of the article knew so little about what he was trying to cover that he couldn't pass on more detail.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:07:03 PM EDT
[img]www.fnherstal.com/html/M3m/HUMMER.jpg[/img] M3M Check it out [url]www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm[/url] Under Integrated Weapons Systems.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:27:34 PM EDT
Thank you mattja. That was informative. See, no one should panic, its still a .50 Browning.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:40:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: They could still be Colts. They and FN both bid for each contract.
View Quote
Then, why is Colt bitching?
The decision came as a "complete supprise" to Colt.... Colt faulted the Marine Corps testing.... Colt was "not allowed to participate"....
View Quote
I do believe that FN has exclusive contract on all M16 variants, while Colt has the M4 due only to them holding patent rights.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:44:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Maybe this will convince certain board members that carbines are cheesy.
View Quote
No, just different rifles for different purposes. As it said, some Marines will be issued M4. My AR15 type carbines are a lot more effective for home defense than my AR15 type rifles.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:52:34 PM EDT
I'm not sure why we're going with the M16A4 over the M4. The stopping power argument from Afghanistan is purely anecdotal. I've got experience with the A2 (Somalia/Liberia) and the M4A1 (Kosovo) in combat and didn't experience any problems. The M855 round is still the same round regardless of the barrel it comes out of. Penetration at max range drops off a bit with the M4, but it is still better than the 7.62 round. In fact, some after action comments coming out of the 10th Mountain Div guys were that the M855 round wasn't stopping them due to OVER penetration. Nothing has been substantiated yet by either Army or Marine Corps fact finders yet. The only problems I'd heard of with the M4 were with folks like the SEALs doing their break contact drills and blasting off a few hundred rounds in the process. The excessive heat got transferred to the chamber locking surfaces quicker than with the A1/A2 and broke some of the locking lugs on the bolts. I've used CAR 15s before, and we never heard of this problem until the M4. Anyone out there got any insight on this?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:54:47 PM EDT
So this is a Mk47. [img]http://www.gdatp.com/Products/fact_sheets2/striker/images/M2000.02.07_STRIKER%20COPY.GIF[/img] Now THAT is a space gun. [url]http://www.gdatp.com/Products/fact_sheets2/striker/Strikerpage1.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:58:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead86: I'm not sure why we're going with the M16A4 over the M4. The stopping power argument from Afghanistan is purely anecdotal. I've got experience with the A2 (Somalia/Liberia) and the M4A1 (Kosovo) in combat and didn't experience any problems. The M855 round is still the same round regardless of the barrel it comes out of. Penetration at max range drops off a bit with the M4, but it is still better than the 7.62 round. In fact, some after action comments coming out of the 10th Mountain Div guys were that the M855 round wasn't stopping them due to OVER penetration. Nothing has been substantiated yet by either Army or Marine Corps fact finders yet. The only problems I'd heard of with the M4 were with folks like the SEALs doing their break contact drills and blasting off a few hundred rounds in the process. The excessive heat got transferred to the chamber locking surfaces quicker than with the A1/A2 and broke some of the locking lugs on the bolts. I've used CAR 15s before, and we never heard of this problem until the M4. Anyone out there got any insight on this?
View Quote
Hello, glad to meet you. Go to the AR15 board under ammunition. Lots of stuff there about this. But more is needed from people who have actually used the stuff. Some beleve anything bad they hear about the M4. Some think that this is all gunwriters bs.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 8:59:40 PM EDT
I suspect Colt is complaining because one of their high execs is a recently retired Marine Corps General. It just ain't cricket to get snubbed by the home team I guess. I've heard of FN getting the military contracts but I've got to tell ya, in sixteen years of service I haven't seen a FN made M16 in the Corps yet. Then again, we don't exactly go out a spend a whole lot of money each year on new rifles. The M4A1 I had was a Colt.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:04:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: They could still be Colts. They and FN both bid for each contract.
View Quote
Then, why is Colt bitching?
The decision came as a "complete supprise" to Colt.... Colt faulted the Marine Corps testing.... Colt was "not allowed to participate"....
View Quote
I do believe that FN has exclusive contract on all M16 variants, while Colt has the M4 due only to them holding patent rights.
View Quote
USN Joe posted this AFTER me. Colt being shut out is a suprise-in fact I don't know how it could be legal to shut them out under current procurement rules. Unless they had Diemaco or Bushy as a token 2nd bid. I am guessing that Colt did something to piss off the Marines and so they just refuesed to deal with them. If the contractor behaves badly enough I am sure the 2nd bid requirement could be waved legally.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:11:30 PM EDT
I don't know anyone who did the testing from Marine Corps Combat Development Command. The only solicitation that I knew of from DIEMACO was in an exploratory bid for a replacement for the M249 down at the squad level. The Dutch Marines touted their Candian M16 SAW variants so the Corps checked them out. I don't believe it ever went beyond that. The only Bushmaster stuff I ever saw on a USMC weapon were a couple of Bushy M4 barrels that found their way onto a couple of our old Colt Commandos/CAR 15s to be turned into M-Forgeries. It was cheaper and easier than ordering new M4s for the staff and I suspect they may have been open purchased. This was about three years ago.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:14:06 PM EDT
you know, the bid could go to Knight's Armament. They already produce a 20 inch m16a4 with RAS. I have their SR-15 M5 which is the same configuration. Never know....the number of weapons purchased won't be that high will it? There aren't that many marines, compared to Army. Knights has produced M-16s for the military before.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:18:50 PM EDT
The Corps was only looking to put these in infantry units. We've only eight active regiments and three reserve, so you're talking about a pretty small population. The last figures I saw were at about 30,000.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:26:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead86: The Corps was only looking to put these in infantry units. We've only eight active regiments and three reserve, so you're talking about a pretty small population. The last figures I saw were at about 30,000.
View Quote
Only 30,000? That is a lot smaller than I would of thought. What happened to the 9th active Infantry regiment? Marine divisions are supposed to have 3 each aren't they?
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:30:09 PM EDT
I heard that the Marines chose the higher velocity, longer range, and better accuracy of the M-16 A4 RIFLE over the cooler looking M4 carbine.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:30:54 PM EDT
The 30,000 is actually pretty high, since most support folks will retain the A2, the LAR, Force Recon, and some Recon Bn guys will retain the M4s. There are a whole lot of folks in an infantry Bn who carry something other than an M16 anyway. The nine regiments went to eight in the spring of '94 when we shut down 9th Marines at Camp Hansen on Okinawa. 3d Mar Div only has the 3d and 4th Marine Regiments assigned to them now. 3d Marines is on Hawaii and 4th Marines in on Oki with the Div.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:43:02 PM EDT
I'm amazed that there's been so many posts on this thread without anybody referring to the report that was circulated a few months ago about USMC field testing of the M4 and M16A4. The URL used to be http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/2dmardiv/32/Military%20Information/m4.htm but that doesn't work any more. Anybody save a copy? I can post it to my web page if needed. Based on the recomendations in that report I would have been surprised if they went for the M4.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:48:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Hoplophile: I'm amazed that there's been so many posts on this thread without anybody referring to the report that was circulated a few months ago about USMC field testing of the M4 and M16A4. The URL used to be http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/2dmardiv/32/Military%20Information/m4.htm but that doesn't work any more. Anybody save a copy? I can post it to my web page if needed. Based on the recomendations in that report I would have been surprised if they went for the M4.
View Quote
I don't recall ever seeing such a animal posted. I would like to see it. Maybe it would explain what Colt did to get the Corps mad at them.
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 9:53:40 PM EDT
THIS IS BULLSHIT! The Mk 19 Is GOD! - the son-of-a-bitch wasn't meant to be humped more than 100yrd's by 2 guys. You think the Mk 47 is any better? Sure, give a Marine a "fire control computer" and he'll piss on it! I could put Mk19 rounds on target within 3 rounds and never give away my position. "First round" hits my ass. The M.F. will break in the hands of the avg O3. They're not saving any cash or "broken backs" by employing something that you can't wack a hammer against.... LONG LIVE THE MK 19!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:13:59 PM EDT
Hmm maybe I am wrong but I coulda sworn FN Herstal (however the hell it is spelled) owned Colt anyway... [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:14:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rallywagon: THIS IS BULLSHIT! The Mk 19 Is GOD! - the son-of-a-bitch wasn't meant to be humped more than 100yrd's by 2 guys. You think the Mk 47 is any better? Sure, give a Marine a "fire control computer" and he'll piss on it! I could put Mk19 rounds on target within 3 rounds and never give away my position. "First round" hits my ass. The M.F. will break in the hands of the avg O3. They're not saving any cash or "broken backs" by employing something that you can't wack a hammer against.... LONG LIVE THE MK 19!!!!!
View Quote
You know, I do wonder how light it would be without the electronics...
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 10:29:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2002 10:31:31 PM EDT by Colt-653]
More than likely there will be very few if any new M16A4 rifles purchased from either Colt or FN in the near future. The USMC will probably do what the USA/USANG did and update older lowers to the new Spec. using PIP kits from vendors such as CAPCO. The M16A4 upper is simply a Milspec. flat-top upper with T-RAS numbers and a 20" 1/7 Govt.Profile barrel. The Knight's RAS M5 is an accessory not a standard part. Scuttle butt is that all M16A2/A4 rifles in USMC inventory will have the M5 handguards installed, but they've also been saying that for several years now. I have a Colt M16A4 upper in the EE that came off a brand new recently purchased Colt M16A4 rifle and it came with the standard gloss finish A2 handguards.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 1:48:09 AM EDT
I wonder if they will stick with that crappy 3 rnd burst or go with the full auto again?
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 3:02:39 AM EDT
You can't do Close Order Drill with an M4. It's just not right.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 4:57:38 AM EDT
My company has a contract with General Dynamics and I often walk adjacent to their phosphate pits and their firing range. Let me just say that I've seen everything their producing, and these lead-throwers will certainly hold their own! Their monsters! Every guy who comes out of the firing range is grinning ear to ear.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 4:59:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By blackmanta: I heard that the Marines chose the higher velocity, longer range, and better accuracy of the M-16 A4 RIFLE over the cooler looking M4 carbine.
View Quote
The Corps shoots for a living and remembers that the "HV" in "SCHV" stands for high velocity. [b]The damn AR-15 was designed to shoot with a 20" barrel.[/b] (Although by 1973 we did know an 18.25" barrel plus flash suppressor was adequate.)
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 5:57:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 5:59:18 AM EDT
I'm curious. How does a manufacturer "design" the cyclic rate of a weapon? How can the M3 be roughly twice as fast as the M2? What are the mechanics behind it? A humble student awaits lessons from the masters...
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 6:12:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod: I'm curious. How does a manufacturer "design" the cyclic rate of a weapon? How can the M3 be roughly twice as fast as the M2? What are the mechanics behind it? A humble student awaits lessons from the masters...
View Quote
Only master here might be a 'masterbaiter' (sp?). I believe it all starts with the powder and the gas system to be used and works on through the springs, buffer assembly, bolt,etc. Such statements as [b]"....a heavier buffer assembly having a plurality of inertial masses acting in delayed sequence to oppose bolt rebound.........."[/b] leave me searching for balls to scratch but I'll bet someone here understands !!
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 9:09:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: They could still be Colts. They and FN both bid for each contract.
View Quote
Then, why is Colt bitching?
The decision came as a "complete supprise" to Colt.... Colt faulted the Marine Corps testing.... Colt was "not allowed to participate"....
View Quote
I do believe that FN has exclusive contract on all M16 variants, while Colt has the M4 due only to them holding patent rights.
View Quote
USN Joe posted this AFTER me. Colt being shut out is a suprise-in fact I don't know how it could be legal to shut them out under current procurement rules. Unless they had Diemaco or Bushy as a token 2nd bid. [red]I am guessing that Colt did something to piss off the Marines and so they just refuesed to deal with them. If the contractor behaves badly enough I am sure the 2nd bid requirement could be waved legally.[/red]
View Quote
Maybe the rifles colt shipped them had large hole pivot pins and odd sized FCG parts.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 9:33:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead86: The M4A1 I had was a Colt.
View Quote
Your M4 had Colt on it because Colt makes the M4, but it is not the same as an M16.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 9:34:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By trickshot: Maybe this will convince certain board members that carbines are cheesy.
View Quote
No, just different rifles for different purposes. As it said, some Marines will be issued M4. My AR15 type carbines are a lot more effective for home defense than my AR15 type rifles.
View Quote
Why are you using an AR for home defense? Who are you expecting? A handgun is adequate and probably superior for defense against burglars and will look a hell of a lot better for you when/if you get dragged into court. That is, unless, your intruders are wearing kevlar. I am intrigued by the popularity of the M4, especially among the professionals who have to bet their lives on them. The shorter recoil tube, buffer and spring have to be at least somewhat less reliable than the full length. The shorter barrel limits your effective range. Maybe it's because urban combat is the norm? Or because the shortie has faster handling? I can understand why run of the mill grunts would want them--they don't like carrying weight and they can't shoot anyways, so why not give them a carbine when their duties don't involve actually meeting the enemy face to face. I wonder if the flat-top will now be CMP legal? What can I say? I'm old school. I look at the FN P-90 and think "what a piece of shit that is."
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 10:35:44 AM EDT
I remember seeing a quote that with the new digital camo, USMC was going to issue all firearms in "coyote brown". Anyone know how that fits into this mix?
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 11:30:06 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top