[Steelshooter]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-us...ntroversy-03289



Excellent article

 

[Steelshooter]

I don't think they were trying to tell the entire story of everything occurring with the XM8. They have other articles on that subject.



Colt seems to be ready to get on the piston bandwagon with the M5.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88956



Personally while I think anything is an improvement over direct impingement I think we need a new rifle and round, not tweaks to the old.

 

[Steelshooter]

You can disagree all you want. Ever been a grunt? Ever shot someone with an M-16? I've been there. Many times. Nothing funny about it and I will want to hear some military combat experience in your background before you talk smack what people in the military do or should think. I'm not interested in what a cop thinks about the M-16. Its apples and oranges to the infantry. While I'm at it tell me when in your past you have been in constant combat without the ability to brush your teeth let alone clean your weapon. Then tell me how well the 20" runs in "dusty" conditions.

 

[Steelshooter]

Yeah. Thats what I thought.

 

[Steelshooter]

http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showf...mp;page=2#51565

Larry Vickers



Re: The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy [Re: Fred Larson]

#51639 - 08/02/07 05:38 AM



If you study history you know that this type of situation is not new (M1 Garand vs M1941 Johnson for example) - what normally happens is the military/Army is very reluctantly being forced to adminster this 'test' and in the end status quo will rule the day



In my opinion they are missing the point - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's and the guns we are currently using are 1960's technology - even if that weapon was an M16/M4 with a new gas system and a new magazine - in my mind that would be a great place to start



Bottomline here is the US military as a whole puts very little importance on small arms and marksmanship (with some notable exceptions) and if the M16/M4 situation does not prove that I don't now what does



Larry Vickers



www.vickerstactical.com