4 ms·

Failure to extract is remedied by the chrome plated chamber in the A2 and later variants (i.e. everything but the early vietnam war variants). I have seen it on

Failure to extract is remedied by the chrome plated chamber in the A2 and later variants (i.e. everything but the early vietnam war variants). I have seen it once on the range (not my rifle, nor the Marine I was coaching), but I've never seen it necessary to use a cleaning rod to extra -- pulling on the charging handle while banging the butt on the deck solved the problem. The modern M4 probably would have been the perfect rifle for Vietnam. The rifle and ammunition are light, which is important when you don't have a truck near by. Urban combat where quick lethality is important wasn't as common. The chromed chamber eliminates the rust problem. A lot of those factors have changed, but I still read most of these stories as "the grass is always greener". How many soldiers have died due to an M16 not killing the enemy fast enough? How many soldiers would die from being less familiar with the weapon during the transition period? Would the weapon chosen as a replacement actually be the best for the job, or would the choice be based on which defense contractor is in a state with a senator on the panel who will be ignoring the military's recommendation? The "it's not a real rifle, it doesn't shoot big enough ammunition, it can't be used as an effective club" arguments sound a lot like traditional RDBMS fans saying that key value stores are useless because they can't guarantee foreign key constraints, or, maybe more appropriately, it's like someone rejecting an effective approximation algorithm because it has an exponential worst case runtime. Life, even war, is not a James Bond movie. Of course special forces uses different equipment -- they have a different mission. If you optimize for the usual case, you may be de-optimizing for the usual case.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
How many soldiers have died due to an M16 not killing the enemy fast enough? How many soldiers would die from being less familiar with the weapon during the transition period? Would the weapon chosen as a replacement actually be the best for the job, or would the choice be based on which defense contractor is in a state with a senator on the panel who will be ignoring the military's recommendation? Don't they put out a tender, get a sample of weapons and have 100 soldiers do test firings, range events and war games using those weapons? How can the senator manipulate that, you try the things first, if they're not better than what you've got then don't buy them. If it's better but only in limited conditions then can't you buy some and only use them in those limited conditions? Is military procurement really that broken.
- ebrenes 17y ago
  It would depend on the particular tests they are allowed to undergo. For example, it's been stated that the M16 needs to be properly cleaned, so any test that would emphasis taking a pristine sample and shooting would not produce adverse results and probably make the gun place highly due to its better accuracy. However, were the trials to include sullying the rifle, banging it against something, throwing it on the ground repeatedly, etc. What would the results be then? As another poster mentioned, sometimes in life (and especially in combat I would assume) shit happens, and you need a gun to fire then, not when it's all nice and clean. So it's very easy to game the system, especially if the war games include strictly enforcing weapon maintenance which might not be the case in actual combat.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

How many soldiers have died due to an M16 not killing the enemy fast enough? How many soldiers would die from being less familiar with the weapon during the transition period? Would the weapon chosen as a replacement actually be the best for the job, or would the choice be based on which defense contractor is in a state with a senator on the panel who will be ignoring the military's recommendation? Don't they put out a tender, get a sample of weapons and have 100 soldiers do test firings, range events and war games using those weapons? How can the senator manipulate that, you try the things first, if they're not better than what you've got then don't buy them. If it's better but only in limited conditions then can't you buy some and only use them in those limited conditions? Is military procurement really that broken.

ebrenes 17y ago
It would depend on the particular tests they are allowed to undergo. For example, it's been stated that the M16 needs to be properly cleaned, so any test that would emphasis taking a pristine sample and shooting would not produce adverse results and probably make the gun place highly due to its better accuracy. However, were the trials to include sullying the rifle, banging it against something, throwing it on the ground repeatedly, etc. What would the results be then? As another poster mentioned, sometimes in life (and especially in combat I would assume) shit happens, and you need a gun to fire then, not when it's all nice and clean. So it's very easy to game the system, especially if the war games include strictly enforcing weapon maintenance which might not be the case in actual combat.