|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Speaking as a former Marine, I don't think detachable-rail handguards would be a good idea either.
"The secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom is courage." - Thucydides, c. 410 BC
Stick
Board policy mandates I state that I shoot for BCM. I have also done work for 200 or so manufacturers within the firearm community. I am prior service, a full time LEO, firearm instructor, armorer, TL, martial arts instructor, and all around good guy.
I also shoot and write for various publications. Let me know if you know cool secrets or have toys worthy of an article...
Flickr Tumblr Facebook Instagram RECOILMAGAZINE OFF GRID RECOIL WEB
Simple - cost. There is no way in hell that the USMC would issue Mk12s to every Marine in lieu of the M16. There is no money for that and there is no manpower to support it. The A4 (and further evolutions) is cheap, effective, and easy to support.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but Marines take the need for concept of "soldier proof" to a whole new level. They are tough guys who work up to their eyeballs in shit, so none of their gear can be fragile or complicated. A tactical match or "3-Gun" setup would be down in no time under "normal" operating conditions.
I think they need the longer barrels because in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the insurgents are often times further out than 400M and high up in elevation. The longer barrel will give the rifle a little more reach and they're betting the next time - it will be in similar environments and planning equipment mix to address that.
Look at total cost of ownership, not just the individual weapon costs. If the USMC changes to a shorter barrel, then they have to get new racks, new vehicle mounts, new shipping containers, make more changes, obsolete a bunch of ancillary components that they would have to repurchase, etc.
For a small service branch, it is a costly proposition and disproportionately more expensive than say for the Army or Navy to make changes since they have a much smaller budget/man to begin with. If they were going to make all of the changes, they could just switch to a MK16/17 or IAR or something as the costs would be equally unaffordable.
Not to threadjack or move off-topic to a political rant, but the Marine Corps should have more money as it has been proven that they can do things much more efficiently and with much less waste than Big Army. If sequestration goes through, they're scheduled to be taking a huge hit; but the politics of that with the current admin is another topic entirely. /rant
Last edited by interfan; 10-15-12 at 17:15.
Heavy profile in a 20" tube is not a good idea due to extra weight. The MK12 has shown that an 18" tube coupled with quality ammo can get the job done at distance. IMO the 18" tube is a good balance point between getting a good stiff cross section for accuracy and heat tolerance without making for a boat anchor. Although its still heavy enough when you have to tote the thing for days on end.
Personally I'd like to see them go with an 18" SPR profile as the current tubes get replaced. Not everyone needs the Douglas match grade barrel and the profile can be had cost effectively from other makers in either SST or ChromeMoly.
Rifle length free float rails can be implemented immediately and would still work when the tubes are swapped out. Same for the A5 stock.
Bookmarks