Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
Your comments would carry more weight if we knew what your background was. Your list also reads more like what you think than what you know.
My M4s have run fine with all of the ammo I have used except for the Wolf. I have shot about a dozen M193 variants, the M855/856, the Mk 262, four match loads, and roughly ten civilian types without a problem. I have not fired any L2A2.
I bother with other "crap" because it gets dark and we have to enter buildings with darkened interiors. We may also want to designate a target, use night vision, or illuminate with IR light. Frequently, I prefer the Trijicon ACOG over the Aimpoint if engagement ranges are likely to exceed 200 m.
You are wrong about SF requiring the double-heatshielded handguards, I do not know where you got that. Thank you for your fire control advice.
Search this site for 5.56 terminal ballistics info if you are interested. The limited range of the M-4 and the M-855 is well known, and has already been discussed, ad nauseum.
You want the Diemaco, fine, I am no fan of Colt's current production either, but I would like to see you quantify the "ten times better" statement. I prefer a hammer forged barrel like the FN variants have, or better yet, the HK 416.
The rail interface is not the problem, leadership is.
The M-4 is superior to the M-16 for CQB and for mounted soldiers. The majority of our engagements in Iraq have been MOUT, not mountain to mountain. In Afghanistan, you may be right.
I think that most of us here would prefer the HK 416 to the M-4, and either to the SA80.
TR
|
I agree wholeheartedly that SA80 is an awful weapon; I've suffered it since 1987 when we received them in Northern Ireland and were told to hand in our SLRs and the M16A1/M203 over and unders we carried in South Armagh. No one wanted to give up the 203s, because SA80 did not come with a grenade launching option - it took 5 years before a muzzle launched grenade was introduced and those played hell with the weapons.
Why is the Diemaco 10x better than the M4: Quality and the Barrel. Indeed the superficial design of it is highly similar, the differences appear once you get inside the weapon and look at the features package. Diemaco had made M16 lookalikes under license for years, but they tore that weapon apart and understood its flaws; which were at a core engineering level. Indeed the majority of the features that Colt 'borrowed' to add onto the M4A1 SOPMOD were already on the Diemaco, which was why it was 10x better.
The ammunition problem with L2A2: propellant shape. Do you recall the scandal when the M16 was issued for the first time and the Government changed the propellant specifications, resulting in carbon deposits inside the rifle and the subsequent nightmares of un-clearable stoppages? When we received the M4, we didn't get the information that it dislikes L2A2 Ball (UK Governemnt issue). On a task in Africa we were cursing the M4s because of the gas stoppages; we changed the gas rings in the bolt and it became marginally better, but the ejected cases were limping out of the receiver.
The problem was fired at the Boffins, who concluded it was the ammunition because when you fed it M855 it fired all day.
Now unlike the US where numerous brands of ammunition fly around, we go with what we get and if that was L2 we were screwed.
I agree with your comment vis a vis the ACOG; UKSF chose this over the Aimpoint for a simpler reason - batteries.
I disagree with your comments regarding rifle use in MOUT, unless your soldiers have a rifle available as well? M16 Rifle is not a long weapon, and to qualify I'd like to point out that in Berlin the British Army we regarded as the masters of MOUT - everyone would come to see the skills and train with us. Berlin, at that time during the cold war, was our MOUT honing ground and we trained incessantly using SLR; some people had Sterling SMG but given that the range envelope might be 5 metres to 500 metres we needed a rifle.
The same situation exists in Iraq now.