|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Some info
ChdNorm
9/17/2004 8:15:36 AM
|
| I think relevant things considered, the M-8 is better than the M-16 family. All except for one important area. Just like we saw with the widespread issue of carbines to riflemen, we're about to see matters get worse. The M-8 gives up a couple of inches of barrel length to even the M-4. Not to mention close to 8 inches from the M-16A1/A2s. This further reduction in terminal performance is where my reservations about the M-8 as a whole stem from. The counter argument is that they can easily be fitted with 20" barrels if the need arises. I think Afghanistan and Iraq have show that need arose a couple of years ago, but the 12.5" barrel is still standard.
As far as it not being a domestic design, who cares? The 240 isn't ..... but its head and shoulders above the 60. The 249 isn't ... but find me one fire team willing to give theirs up. If the Germans know one thing ... it's how to make beer. Followed very closely by firearms and cars.
I do find the caliber debate interesting. I still think simply necking up the 5.56NATO case to 6mm would counter both sides of the debate. Firing a 90-115gr projectile at reasonable velocity, it fulfills the desire for more mass and doesn't rely on the shock produced from velocity alone (that isn't going to come out of a 12.5" barrel). Having the same parent case as the 5.56, capacity and volume of fire are not compromised. existing weapons such as the M-16s and M-249s already in inventory would require only rebarreling to change over. Everything else from the bolts to the mags would be common between the two.
And about the M-9s adoption ... Colt's entry flat sucked (not surprising since they haven't made a decent weapon since the series 70 Govt. models). Their entry wound up in commercial form as the American 2000. A dismal failure by any measure. Smith & Wesson did enter a version of the 5904 that was good, but just couldn't match either the Berretta or the Sig in terms of mean rounds between failures or durability. They accepted the two best, and then decided based on cost. I'd rather travel that road ... than have an inferior weapon based on tradition.
|
| |
|
|
|
