 merrie says: There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of veterans far more qualified to opine on whether or not the M-4/M-16 family of small arms are the best that money can buy, but it doesn't take a great deal of qualification to suspect that the answer to this question is "no." The basic weapon design for the M-16/M-4 is over 40 years old. While there have been modifications and upgrades during its service lifetime, it has always been prone to failure in adverse conditions. The shorter M-4 carbine, with an abbreviated gas system, is also said to be less reliable than the longer barreled M-16. The XM-8 program developed a lighter, more reliable 5.56 weapon. The military canceled it, but civilians can get a semi-automatic version for themselves. There are also other, more reliable weapons being used in small quantities in the field, from the HK416 to the FN SCAR. M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine: Time For a Change [...] The Mark 16 was developed for Special Operations, because the M4s reliability issues seemed beyond the capability of the Army and the contractor to rectify. The Mark 16 was never intended as a replacement for the current family of small arms, nor should it be, particularly when the M16/M4 reliability and lethality issues can be rectified without acquiring an entirely new family of small arms. All that is necessary is what the military calls a “product improvement program,” or “PIP” that upgrades the current weapons. My first encounter with the M16 came almost 40 years ago in Vietnam. By the time I reached Vietnam, I had been in the Army fo... |
View the Top Clips from October 11, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
