|
Originally Posted by AztecWarrior
1. Not all combat is restricted to sub-100 meter ranges. What worked in Vietnam's junges may also work in Iraq's urban warfare, but neither of those may work in Central Europe. Not every conflict will be won in dry urban areasI wonder why we're going for a general issue of the M4, given the reports of it. Besides, the AR-15 series is getting old, H&K's XM8 looks nice.
Yes, I understand that in theory, the cartridge compensates for less mass via increased velocity, as physics taught us when force equals mass times speed. However, if it doesn't take a man down in two shots with an M4, and we're going for a general issue of the M4, we'd better use a 6.X.
2. I really want to shoot one, does that count? I can just hope our trials work out. But does this mean nobody has the right to talk about it? I don't get the second part of your point here.
3. There are dozens of 6.X cartridges and I'm tired, cut me some slack. It's just a letter.
4. Other countries worked fine with the FN-FAL which carried 20 cartridges. 5 bullets is not a massive issue, and if it is found to be, extending it won't be a big problem. Hell, we maintained a 20-round size when changing from the M14 to M16.
Just because I agree with a publication does not mean that I'm a mindless drone of GWLE.
|
1. The Corps has no plans to deviate from the M16A3/A4 currently. That is what is being issued to Marines deploying. Those who shoot Expert get the A4, all else get the A3. Yes the XM8 looks nice, but it's a ways off for deployment into today's battlefields. And in today's modern battlefield, it's mostly UrbanOps warefare anyways, with firefights at 50-100m (I'll get a more precise idea of how close fighting in Fallujah is the next time I speak to my brother who's deployed there) As for physics, did you take the same physics I did? Cause Force = Mass x Acceleration not Force = Mass times Velocity last I checked. And as for it not taking someone with two to the chest, again, it's likely at an inreased range with the M4, in which case it's not likely that the M4 would be employed at such a range. At least not by the Marines, since as I pointed out before, we're sticking with the M16.
2. It means you, me, Bliz, and anyone else without firsthand knowledge of the round's specifics has no right to tout it as a good replacement. Sure the mag has an opinion, but they're once source and opinion so far. Personally I'll trust whatever the Corps decide upon if they do decide to change up the round. For now I'll stick with 5.56.
3. I think the point Bliz is driving at here is that if you're going to spout off, be accurate in what you're writing about.
4. Bliz was pointing out that just because the round is smaller and less lethal at longer ranges, doesn't make that huge a difference to Joe Any Marine, just like a smaller magazine. Also, if you're going to point out that while moving on the battlefield that you're going to be less accurate with the weapon, wouldn't you want more ammo in that magazine? At least according to your "opinions" you would think so.
2004-04-28, 11:22 PM
Linear Mode
