The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M4 in the harsh spotlight, again
Something Meatier    4/20/2008 11:01:21 PM
Colt's grip on military rifle criticized
Associated Press, 4/20/08

HARTFORD, Conn. - No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.

Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The M4, which can fire at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute, is a shorter and lighter version of the company's M16 rifle first used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine. At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines.

"And if you tend to have the problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," says Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers. "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon. And they ought to."

U.S. military officials don't agree. They call the M4 an excellent carbine. When the time comes to replace the M4, they want a combat rifle that is leaps and bounds beyond what's currently available.

"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."

Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.

"We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says.

William Keys, Colt's chief executive officer, says the M4 gets impressive reviews from the battlefield. And he worries that bashing the carbine will undermine the confidence the troops have in it.

"The guy killing the enemy with this gun loves it," says Keys, a former Marine Corps general who was awarded the Navy Cross for battlefield valor in Vietnam. "I'm not going to stand here and disparage the senator, but I think he's wrong."

In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.

And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.

Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say.

The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't.

Or won't.

"All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago.

The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each.

The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall.

Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.

The M16, designed by the visionary gunsmith Eugene Stoner, had such a rough entry into military service in the mid-1960s that a congressional oversight committee assailed the Army for behavior that bordered on criminal negligence.

Stoner's lighter, more accurate rifle was competing against a heavier, more powerful gun the Army had heavily invested in. To accept the M16 would be to acknowledge a huge mistake, and ordnance officials did as much as they could to keep from buying the new automatic weapon. They continually fooled with Stoner's design.

"The Army, if anything, was trying to sideline and sabotage it," said Richard Colton, a historian with the Springfield Armory Museum in Massachusetts.

Despite the hurdles, the M16 would become the military's main battlefield rifle. And Colt, a company founded nearly 170 years ago by Hartford native Samuel Colt, was the primary manufacturer. Hundreds of thousands of M16s have been produced over the years for the U.S. military and foreign customers. Along with Colt, FNMI, an FN Herstal subsidiary in South Carolina, has also produced M16s.

Development of the carbine was driven by a need for a condensed weapon that could be used in tight spaces but still had plenty of punch. Colt's answer was the 7 1/2-pound M4. The design allowed the company to leverage the tooling used for the M16.

In 1994, Colt was awarded a no-bid contract to make the weapons. Since then, it has sold more than 400,000 to the U.S. military.

Along the way, Colt's hold has been threatened but not broken.

In 1996, a Navy office improperly released Colt's M4 blueprints, giving nearly two dozen contractors a look at the carbine's inner workings. Colt was ready to sue the U.S. government for the breach. The company wanted between $50 million and $70 million in damages.

Cooler heads prevailed. The Defense Department didn't want to lose its only source for the M4, and Colt didn't want to stop selling to its best customer.

The result was an agreement that made Colt the sole player in the U.S. military carbine market. FNMI challenged the deal in federal court but lost.

And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.

The Army, the carbine's heaviest user, is outfitting all its front-line combat units with M4s. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and special operations forces also carry M4s. So do U.S. law enforcement agencies and militaries in many NATO countries.

More than $300 million has been spent on 221,000 of the carbines over the past two years alone. And the Defense Department is asking Congress to provide another $230 million for 136,000 more.

Keane, the retired Army general, knows how difficult it is to develop and deliver a brand-new rifle to the troops. As vice chief of staff, the Army's second highest-ranking officer, Keane pushed for the acquisition of a carbine called the XM8.

The futuristic-looking rifle was designed by Heckler & Koch. According to Keane, the XM8 represented the gains made in firearms technology over the past 40 years.

The XM8 would cost less and operate far longer without being lubricated or cleaned than the M4 could, Heckler & Koch promised. The project became bogged down by bureaucracy, however. In 2005, after $33 million had been invested, the XM8 was shelved. A subsequent audit by the Pentagon inspector general concluded the program didn't follow the military's strict acquisition rules.

Keane blames a bloated and risk-averse bureaucracy for the XM8's demise.

"This is all about people not wanting to move out and do something different," Keane says. "Why are they afraid of the competition?"

As Colt pumps out 800 new M4s every day to meet U.S. and overseas demand, the company is remodeling its aging 270,000-square-foot facility in a hardscrabble section of Connecticut's capital city. New tooling and metal cutting machines have been installed as part of a $10 million plant improvement.

Many of the old ways remain, however. Brick-lined pit furnaces dating back to the 1960s are still used to temper steel rifle barrels.

"Modernizing the plant while trying to maintain quality and meet deliveries has been a challenge," says James Battaglini, Colt's chief operating officer.

Within military circles there are M4 defectors. U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., was one of the carbine's first customers. But the elite commando units using the M4 soured on it; the rifle had to be cleaned too often and couldn't hold up under the heavy use by Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs.

When the M16 was condensed into an M4, the barrel and other key parts had to be shortened. That changed the way the gun operated and not for the better, concluded an internal report written seven years ago by special operations officials but never published. Dangerous problems ranged from broken bolt assemblies, loose and ruptured barrels, and cartridges stuck in the firing chamber.

"Jamming can and will occur for a variety of reasons," the report said. "Several types of jams, however, are 'catastrophic' jams; because one of our operators could die in a firefight while trying to clear them."

Pointing to the report's unpublished status, Colt has disputed its findings. The M4 has been continually improved over the years, says Keys, the company's chief executive. The M4 may not meet the exacting standards of U.S. commando forces, he adds, but it fills the requirements spelled out by the regular Army.

Special Operations Command is replacing the M4s and several other rifles in its arsenal with FN Herstal's SCAR, which comes in two models: one shoots the same 5.56 mm round as the M4; the other a larger 7.62 mm bullet and costs several hundred dollars more. Both SCARs can accommodate different-size barrels allowing the weapons to be fired at multiple ranges.

The SCARs are more accurate, more reliable and expected to last far longer than their predecessors, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Marc Boyd, a command spokesman.

"SOCOM likes to be different," says Keys of Colt, using the acronym for the command. "They wanted something unique."

With the SCAR not yet in full-scale production, Heckler & Koch's HK416 is being used by elite units like Delta Force, the secretive anti-terrorism unit. The command would not comment on the HK416 other than to say there are "a small number" of the carbines in its inventory.

A key difference between the Colt carbine and the competitors is the way the rounds are fed through the rifle at lightning speed.

The SCAR and HK416 use a gas piston system to cycle the bullets automatically. The M4 uses "gas impingement," a method that pushes hot carbon-fouled gas through critical parts of the gun, according to detractors. Without frequent and careful maintenance, they say, the M4 is prone to jamming and will wear out more quickly than its gas-piston competitors.

"A gas piston system runs a little bit smoother and a lot cleaner," says Dale Bohner, a retired Air Force commando who now works for Heckler & Koch. "If the U.S. military opened up a competition for all manufacturers, I see the 416 being a major player in that."

The top half of the Heckler & Koch gun ? a section known as the upper receiver that includes the barrel and the gas piston ? fits on the lower half of the M4. So if the military wanted a low-cost replacement option, it could buy HK416 upper receivers and mate them with the lower part of the M4 for about $900 a conversion, according to Bohner.

Yet outside of Special Operations Command, there seems to be no rush to replace the M4.

Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, head of the Army office that buys M4s and other combat gear, traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan last summer to get feedback from soldiers on Colt's carbine.

"I didn't hear one single negative comment," Brown says. "Now, I know I'm a general, and when I go up and talk to a private, they're going to say everything's OK, everything's fine. I said, 'No, no, son. I flew 14,000 miles out here to see you on the border of Afghanistan. The reason I did that was to find out what's happening.'"

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the troops may not be aware of the alternatives. He wants the Pentagon to study the options and make a decision before Congress does.

"Sen. Coburn has raised a good question: 'Do we have the best personal weapon?' And I don't know that we do," Sessions said. "We're not comfortable now. Let's give this a rigorous examination."
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
flamingknives       4/25/2008 4:13:43 PM
The IA is also familiar with bribery and corruption too, but familiarity is no real reason to keep something. If anything switching rifles might help to break some bad habits. Unless people want to suggest that the arabs of any stripe are too damn stupid to maintain and operate western weaponry. The main argument I could see in favour of the Kalashnikov is not that it is more reliable, but that the Iraqis used to make their own. That way you gain extra support by creating jobs for the Iraqis - give them something to do so there is less incentive to cause trouble. Bringing in guns from the US only gives the IA guns. Making them in-country reduces the opposition. Maybe license-build some of those funky US-spec conversions of the AK series with picatinny rails on them, maybe chambred for 5.56mm or 5.45mm. Hell, it might even be fun to give them one of the suggested calibre improvements (6.5 or 6.8).

License-built in country rifles, with optics, with the ammunition plants to support them. Big points on the morale front. 

I'm sure that the US does handsomely out of the arrangement too, but being as they are probably paying for it, one way or another, that's fair enough. As long as they admit and don't try to dress it up as something else.  Probably Colt are getting the contract, which IMHO is a bit of an error. One of the others (Magpul, FNH are the two I know offhand) would make sense as they wouldn't gouge the IA as much a Colt does with the US Army. ISTR that the USMC went with FNH for the M16A4?

IIRC, there was a bit of a stink recently where the Iraqi government went to Serbia for arms in what came across as a deal purely to get around the anti-corruption laws in place.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/25/2008 6:04:18 PM

The IA is also familiar with bribery and corruption too, but familiarity is no real reason to keep something.

Yes it is.  Being familiar with something already requires less new training, while logistically spare parts et al are easy to come by.

If anything switching rifles might help to break some bad habits.

How so?  Perhaps if the rifles were converted to semi-automatic only, however that could easily be done with existent AK's.

Unless people want to suggest that the arabs of any stripe are too damn stupid to maintain and operate western weaponry.

It isn't a matter of stupidity - but it is widely acknowledged that AK's are more suitable for less trained soldiers and militia.

The main argument I could see in favour of the Kalashnikov is not that it is more reliable, but that the Iraqis used to make their own. That way you gain extra support by creating jobs for the Iraqis - give them something to do so there is less incentive to cause trouble.

I agree.  However provided with the machinery, they could make any rifle.  It's the old give a man a fish, or teach him to fish, argument.

Bringing in guns from the US only gives the IA guns. Making them in-country reduces the opposition. Maybe license-build some of those funky US-spec conversions of the AK series with picatinny rails on them, maybe chambred for 5.56mm or 5.45mm. Hell, it might even be fun to give them one of the suggested calibre improvements (6.5 or 6.8).

Or perhaps they could just use a mixed armoury of AK's - as they are now.

To sum up my position. The American army argument for retaining the M4, is that no new rifle is considerably better than it, and so making a switch is not worth the effort.  I believe the same is true with Iraq and the AK.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/25/2008 8:29:04 PM
Considering that the IA is being trained from the ground up, a change in rifles isn't such a problem as you might think. Plus, with a new set of training regimes for the new rifles you might be able to break the spray and pray approach favoured by most AK users.

Widely acknowledged that AKs are more suitable for less well trained soldiers? The Iraqi Army is being trained by the Western armies to their standards. Their officers and senior NCOs are going through British Army schools, if nothing else. If that training isn't sufficient, then they must be stupid.

As for making the AKs, you can't claim that an Armalite is too high tolerance to be maintained, then claim that they could manufacture them as easily as AKs.

So we could stick them with a "Mixed armoury of AKs", or equip the army wholesale with new standard weaponry. Like as not, the cheapest rifle available in large numbers is probably an Armalite. AKs were dished out like sweets at a child's birthday party during the cold war which is why they are so prevalent and cheap, but tooling up an army is a different matter. The AKs just aren't made in large quantities any more unless you wish to buy from Russia or China.

Also against the mixed bag of decades old kalashnikovs is the logistics. With a mix-and-match of AKs you have to carry spare parts for all of them and have armourers proficient with the lot. Granted one AK is much like another, but there will be differences. You also have less control. With new-issue Armalites you have the serial numbers recorded so you know who ought to have what. If Armalites turn up in the hands of the bad guys, then you can tell who you have a problem with. Then there is the common image, which will appeal to the tribal instincts. People carrying the same kit are on your side. If it takes more discipline to clean than the AK, good. A bit of discipline in an army isn't a bad thing, last time I checked.

Finally, small arms wear out. That's why there were US Marines complaining about their SAWs in 2003. Guns wear out.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/25/2008 8:49:56 PM
Well you have failed to convince me.

But then the decision is already made and my opinion mute.


 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2008 12:40:29 PM
Whatever rifle IA may use in the future, as long as it's not SA80, they'll be fine.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/26/2008 4:00:30 PM
Unless you have an irrational hatred of bullpups there's nothing wrong with the current version of the SA80.

Well, apart from the cost and the availability.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/26/2008 4:39:46 PM
The L85A2 is an excellent rifle.  The new M16's are also good rifles (is Iraq getting the M16 or M4?).

However, is the M16 really that much better than the AKM to warrant the shift?

From your previous post flaming - I don't agree that a soldier maintaining a rifle can be equated to a factory of specialists producing rifles.  Iraq could produce any rifle under the sun if they had the machinery - however I think their soldiers will get on better with the AKM than the M16.



 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/26/2008 5:08:01 PM
Is the Armalite that much better?
Perhaps not on the technical level, but there's always much more than that in equipment procurement.
The Armalites are new and sourced from an ally. They are as cheap as any western rifle is likely to be. They have serial numbers that are recorded. They have ammunition commonality with the Western forces that they are working with. They are distinct from the old traditions of the Iraqi Army. 

Machinery is not the be-all and end-all of producing rifles. You need quality control and that means people. If Iraqi engineers can produce armalites, why can the Iraqi Army not use them? 

At the moment, the IA probably needs to replace its small arms anyway. They have the hand-me-downs that are decades old, so to replace them with Armalites is probably no more arduous than replacing them with new AKs, especially as the new IA is being trained basically from the ground up.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2008 5:49:54 PM

Unless you have an irrational hatred of bullpups there's nothing wrong with the current version of the SA80.

Well, apart from the cost and the availability.

I have nothing against bullpup, but all thing against wrongly designed firearms. Even after the (partial) fix of reliability problem, there are still to many wrongly designed feature on SA80.

1. Heat dissipation holes on the receiver is still there. The action is still not enclosed. It still sucks in sand and mud-rich environment.

2. Ergonomically, it still sucks. Wrongly placed selector, wrongly placed mag catch and wrongly placed safety button are just simply suck. Funny thing is that FAMAS and AUG was designed before SA80 and got most things right from the start. BTW, AR-15 does have kits for ambidextrous operation. Even the standard issued M16A4 doesn't prevent shooters from operating on left shoulder. It just takes some instruction to use it properly. Not with an SA80, because it's impossible. And I don't get this square cheek rest thing as well.

3. The bayonet also sucks. Why can't they remake bayonet & mounts from old SMLE No. 3 or No. 5? What's this thing about "plug-your-bayonet-into-flash-hider" like phallus pushed into anus? I just don't get it. Sometimes I wonder even the cheaply made spike bayonets of No.4 is way better that the "phallus-in-anus" idea.

4. The iron sight sucks. The reticle of SUSAT is, ugh, so WW2. The irony is that Russians do have a good scope for AKM/-74 which there are scale, elevation and windage indicators on it!

5. Accuracy may not be a good thing for standard issued rifles, because FTE and jamming also come with overly tight chamber. It happened with old Vietnam-era M16, and it is left unsolved on SA80. It would be hilarious if MOD of UK starts to buy ammo  of lower quality.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2008 6:00:30 PM

The L85A2 is an excellent rifle.  The new M16's are also good rifles (is Iraq getting the M16 or M4?).

However, is the M16 really that much better than the AKM to warrant the shift?

From your previous post flaming - I don't agree that a soldier maintaining a rifle can be equated to a factory of specialists producing rifles.  Iraq could produce any rifle under the sun if they had the machinery - however I think their soldiers will get on better with the AKM than the M16.



I will guess this is a availability issue. The US is probably transfer equipment to IA, and M16s are just in the list. Also, local or national Iraqi agencies might want to purchase specialized weapons that comes with M1913 rail as factory default. The option is not available to AKs at this moment, and things available in US civilian market can not deliver in quantity in time. Recent news about ammo purchase also indicate that there is a shortage of quality 7.62x39 stock, while South Korean, Taiwan, Poland and the Philippines are churning out 5.56 NATO like crazy to fill the demand.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       4/26/2008 6:15:47 PM
1. Tests have shown otherwise, as has operational use.
2. a) Where else would you put the magazine release?
    b) The selector is in a poor position, but that's where the action is. The safety catch is no worse than the AKs for ergonomics.
    c) There are two ambidextrous bullpup rifles that I know of. Others require disassembling to make work.
3. Other than the somewhat disturbing imagery, what is wrong with the bayonets?
4. The iron sights are what they are. They were for second line troops. How are they so much worse than the iron sights on an Armalite? The SUSAT is easy to aim and meant that the British Army had practically indestructable optical sights on general issue for two decades before the US did. SUSAT is now being replaced with ACOG and holographic sights.
5. Disproved in tests and operational use. So far. Poor ammunition will muck up any weapon. I doubt the M2 is regarded as unreliable, but the British Army managed to louse it up with dodgy ammo.

Yellichink - have you used one?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/26/2008 6:16:27 PM

They are distinct from the old traditions of the Iraqi Army. 

Wasn't the one largest mistake of post-war reconstruction, the disbandment of the standing Iraqi army?

Yelli - your post on the SA-80 is wrong.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       4/26/2008 7:44:23 PM

No abolishing the Iraqi Army in 2003 was a good idea.

1) 1/3 or more of the Army had already "self-demobilized" i.e., deserted, rendering it already out of action;

2) It's officer and NCO Corp s were solidly Sunni and in support of the FORMER regime, not the regime-to-be;

3) It was a lousy army to begin with.  It had fought poorly against the Iranians, collapsed against the US and Coalition forces in 1991 and had been starved of funds and equipment for 12 years leading to its final humiliation inn 2003.  It had no track record of success, no support amongst the majority of the populace (65% Shi'i), having been instrumental in the oppression of the Iraqi people.

 

Bottom-Line: using the Iraqi Army from Saddam Hussein would have been the equivalent of using the Wehrmacht to police post-war Germany, but promising "change."  I might using a Wehrmacht that had lost it's last two wars, very badly and had spent 12 years beating up on the German people....the abolition of the Iraqi Army was a good and necessary idea.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2008 10:43:02 PM

1. Tests have shown otherwise, as has operational use.
2. a) Where else would you put the magazine release?
    b) The selector is in a poor position, but that's where the action is. The safety catch is no worse than the AKs for ergonomics.
    c) There are two ambidextrous bullpup rifles that I know of. Others require disassembling to make work.
3. Other than the somewhat disturbing imagery, what is wrong with the bayonets?
4. The iron sights are what they are. They were for second line troops. How are they so much worse than the iron sights on an Armalite? The SUSAT is easy to aim and meant that the British Army had practically indestructable optical sights on general issue for two decades before the US did. SUSAT is now being replaced with ACOG and holographic sights.
5. Disproved in tests and operational use. So far. Poor ammunition will muck up any weapon. I doubt the M2 is regarded as unreliable, but the British Army managed to louse it up with dodgy ammo.

Yellichink - have you used one?

1. What test? Never heard of SA80A2 can be put in mud, buried in sand, and put in sand water then pull out without malfunction. It is not to say that M16 can do that as well, but some other rifles did.

2. (a) Anywhere but left side of receiver where the one SA80's is located. More on this latter.
    (b) then how come AUG and FAMAS can do it on one trigger?
    (c) You can still have natural left handers operate left hand rifles, even though they require reassembly. Also, FN       
          F2000 solved that problem once and for all.

3. Get a full mag down the barrel in full auto with bayo on, then you'll get the idea, especially when you try to get it off. This is no joking scenario.

4. Good Iron sights are awesome. What I refer to was iron sights of SA80, both the carrying handle one and the puny tiny itsy bitsy one on SUSAT. They all suck. Why the awesome iron sights from L1A1 and SMLE No.4 cannot be put on SA80 is another myth. AR-15's iron sight system was derived from M1903 and M1917 rifles which was proven in two world wars. If you are good at it, you can hit with it any target within 200m without problem, and 300m if you are really good. Iron sight is a must even on modern rifles, because optics may fail. Iron sight will never fail you. Optics is on another league. There are plenty of choices for ARs, even include SUSAT. For SA80 users, they still only have SUSAT. While you can attach whatever you need on flattop M16A4, British soldiers can put only government issued stuff on it. Even new AUGs have rails. And you are wrong about M16's optics. Cold had made those 4x scopes for M16A1s back in 1960s. These things are already there, and it's US Army who bought only a handful of them. Also remember that AN/PVS-2 was already issued to front line during Vietnam War.

www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=724137&utm_source=nextag&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=657

and yes, you can still use iron sight when you put this thing on AR-15's carry handle. It is a see-through scope mount.

5. I have fired guns older then me with ammunition made before my birth. The only problems I had were common cigar fail to eject and fail to load. Never had I had FTE and jam. If I can, I would really want to bring some Taiwan made M193 POS ammo to SA80A2 just to see how Murphy would do his job.

Given the popularity of SA80 in world market, I don't have the luck to touch a real one. However, after trying one toy replica in local airsoft store, I'd swear anything about ergonomics are true.

BTW, ArmaLite is now a brand trademark of Eagle Arms, who bought it from god-knows whom about ten years ago. The majority of M16/M4 used by all US military branches (including USCG) was made by Colt Firearms.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       4/26/2008 11:25:01 PM


Yelli - your post on the SA-80 is wrong.


Name one thing that I was wrong about SA80.

Imagine yourself wearing full combat rig with body armor during a shootout with an empty magazine. Speed reload is required.

Speed reload procedure when you are using M16A4:

1. index finger from right hand hit mag release, empty mag drops out.
2. left hand reach new mag.
3. insert new mag.
4. hit bolt release and get back shooting stuff.

Speed reload procedure when you are using L85A2:

1. hit mag release with left hand finger, the mag drops out.
2. left hand reach new mag.
3. insert new mag.
4. right hand (holding grip) rotate rifle 90 deg with charging handle facing upward.
5. left hand recharge.

So, when using M16, both hands have different jobs so reloading is faster. The same cannot be said with an SA80, since almost all jobs are done by left hand.

BTW, Polish and Israeli AKs somehow have selector operable by right thumb.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy