JR47
Member
"Really? Are you sure? Where did I respond about qualifications to state which weapons system were related to length of service, or combat time before"
Short memory have you?
"Just to throw a little fuel into the fire, one of my old unit's men is an MOH winner. His opinion of the M16 is that it made a great target rifle, but a lousy combat rifle."
"Please, try to remember who posted what before you embarrass yourself again."
Do you feel embarassed?
Try again, if you note the progression of posts, they are numbered, you'll find that the referred quote by me was in post number 63, while yours was in post number 61. Can you explain how I started talking about what someone's length of service did? As I asked before, did you read the posts?
An E5 who did maintance in my old unit and the Sgt major who retired now almost 20 years ago were 2 of a handful of survivors from the batallion in vietnam (Airborne unit all volunteers, all enlisted professional soldiers). Never in their careers did either blame the M-16 or its design for a single problem, both maintained their weapons constantly and religiously, both knew the new design had a few weak points, both maintained to prevent those weak points from causing a problem.
Followed by:
Both loved the design later of the M-16A2 and raved about the design faults being fixed.
Pick one there, buddy.
I read that test with the M-4, in it the USGI mag was used. Id like to see the test done again with magpul mags, with all of the rifles tested in the sand test, compare results.
I'm sure that you would. However, unless and until P-Mags are issue, the entire idea of "it wasn't fair" is pretty stupid. The guns were tested with the magazines offered with the system. As I said before, the magazine has been the weakest point in the system. Apparently, you agree, or you wouldn't be asking for non-issue items.