AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/4/2004 9:38:47 PM EDT
| I will admit to not being the sharpest tool in the shed, BUT what is the advantage to this new and improved rifle? I must be missing somthing so clue me in. It seems pointless for my tax dollars to buy and new rifle that doesn't improve on ANY aspect of the current rifle. |
That is the question of the hour.
Yes it would be. The question I asked in another SCAR thread is what are the deficiencies in the AR platform that would cause SF personnel to seek a new rifle? The outcome would suggest, given SFs rightful reputation, that the differences between the two rifles are significant. Cheers |
|
I heard from some in the community that the biggest complaint about the AR/M16/M4 system is how the gas system farts into the face of the bolt. After sustained firing in less than ideal conditions, I suppose there might be a lot of carbon buildup caking up the extractor and ejector causing malfunctions. |
Biggest gripes against the AR15: 1. Its very vulnerable to sand 2. Direct gas impingement fouls the action with each shot 3. High maintenance. 4. Laborious and time consuming to clean 5. Too many parts 6. Requires expensive modifications to be truly modular. To a government that pays for millions of rifles, this is a big deal Here is the funny part, how does a fairly primitive rifle manage to still be the standard by which all other 5.56 rifles are measured. Despite all of its flaws it manages to also get so much right. Still, compared to offerings from many other nations in NATO, the M16 is a dinosaur and our military is looking to put an end to all the flaws listed above but still maintain a M16 level of performance which is why we are subjecting a variety of rifles to such exhaustive testing. The M16 is a real hard act to follow As for changing the ammo, 5.56 does a fine job of putting people down as is, so there is no imperative to replace it. If anything, look for 75gr or 77gr 5.56 to become more popular in the military as they are already being tested in the field and have been shown to be a dramatic improvement over SS109 |
This is simply wrong. Sand is no more a problem for an AR then for any other weapon currently on the battlefield, except the AK, and even the AK has problems. And if the ejection port cover is kept closed and a magazine inserted, the AR does better in sand than most other rifles.
There is no other weapon that is currently better than the M16 family in NATO or anywhere else. I wish there were, and I believe that someday there will be. But all of the current offerings have problems that are much more significant than any of the M16, and all have less capability than the M16. That's why the M16 is the choice of every countries' elite forces that actually HAVE a choice of what they will carry.
Again, this is simply not the case. 5.56mm started out as a "good, but only barely" performer, but as the ammo was changed from M193 to M855, and especially as barrel lengths have grown shorter, performance has gone down significantly. Even Mk262 (which has NO CHANCE of being adopted for use military-wide) is quite limited from the short 10.5" and 11.5" barrels that everyone wants. The simple reality is that you can't make such radical changes to a weapons platform and get the same level of performance without changing the caliber to accomidate that. The military hates change, but eventually that's going to have to happen. -Troy |
|
Really, I don't understand why we didn't go with a 308 or a 308 light. The 5.56 round is anemic, now before I start a riot, why else would entry teams feel the need to shoot folks 3-5 times at close range to "keep em down". Surprise, a larger bullet outperforms the 5.56 in every regard with respective bullet designs. Yes, I agree that the m-16 is a great rifle it has some very redeeming qualities, but I guess I have a problem with the Gov spending my tax dollars and receiving basically no yeild for their(my) investment. If they had chosen to retrofit every rifle in the inventory with railed handguards and ACOGs like some of the marines are using I would be all for it. |
Because when operators are right next to a hostile entity, they want to make sure it no longer poses a threat to them once they turn their back on it? I've heard that at least one of the Iranian terrorists in the Iranian embassy attack in London was shot some 80 times by SAS personnel during the Princess Gate siege. FYI, they were using 9mm MP-5s. |
Actually, I think it was something like 127 or 137 times.... 
|
Once someone has been shot 50 times, the rest ceases to matter.
|
AR Sponsor