I hope that is sarcasm?
Printable View
No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo....
I have completely mixed feelings on the issue, but I'm leaning towards "Bad Idea."
If more volume is truly needed, they should be incorporating more SAWs into patrols.
Look for this to turn into more black-on-ammo KIAs, which will turn into dudes (willfully or not) carrying a completely retarded number of mags with them.
Funny that it's the STB too... I wonder if they practice their "Death Blossom" in garrison? :D
For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).
The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
From that perspective the change to an FA group makes sense. It seemed the article focused more on the supposed increase in soldier effectiveness with a fully automatic gun.
How about the SSF? As someone who has used both the standard A1 on auto and the SSF on auto whats the difference, is it really that much better? Or the main benefit of the SSF in the semi-auto pull? Ive got an SSA and the difference between it and the mil-spec trigger is night and day.
Some of you guys need to realize exactly who is being quoted in this article. They're not talking to SOF guys, switched on combat arms guys, etc. Of course they're saying face palm worthy stuff.
M4A1 is a good thing, regardless of who is getting them.