Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: Everyjoe-America’s Soldiers Deserve a Better Rifle

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Wisco
    Posts
    987
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by montrala View Post
    Yes and Police should drive Ferraris to stop speeders because it is superior to the Crown Vic in everyway, sounds great, doesn't quite work out in the real world. For a infantry Lt Colonel I'm not sure you know what your talking about.
    I perfer black coffee in the morning, bourbon in evenings and spending money on sh*t I probably don't need.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    1,094
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    What a clown bag of an officer.


    The only thing he mentioned that might be a real improvement is caseless ammunition. IF it can be as reliable, then reduced weight along with no more FTE stoppages could be considered an improvement in small arms design. You could even go so far as to say that a new lack of ejection port would reduce outside contamination.

    He still never stated that m855 is an old design that doesn't meet modern ballistic requirements. Simply changing to mk318 or hell even gold dots (pending Geneva approval) would be a big upgrade in knock down power and wouldn't require an entirely new weapon system. One of the major reasons the DOD doesn't switch calibers is because then we would have to get NATO to make the switch. That would be a 10 year war in and of itself.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,290
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)

    Everyjoe-America’s Soldiers Deserve a Better Rifle

    The whole Geneva thing with SP/HP ammo is stupid. Unless I am misunderstanding something, ammo designed to cause unnecessary harm is outlawed. First, it's a bullet - it's point is to kill. Second, SP/HP is designed to kill better. And that guy is an idiot.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    It was the Hague conventions, not the Geneva conventions.

    It went into effect more than 100 years ago and the US is not a signatory to the provision against the use of expanding bullets.
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    We do not have to go anywhere to get a bullet approved for warfare. It's done internally. I think it's the IG office that determines if a bullet is lawful for the US military to use
    Last edited by MistWolf; 05-13-14 at 17:48.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    7,290
    Feedback Score
    87 (100%)
    Ok thanks for the corrections. Unfortunately, if anything, that's even more ridiculous.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Sic semper tyrannis.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    We do not have to go anywhere to get a bullet approved for warfare. It's done internally. I think it's the IG office that determines if a bullet is lawful for the US military to use
    It's the Judge Advocate General, not IG.
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,562
    Feedback Score
    0
    Jim Sullivan was on the original design team (along with Gene Stoner and Bob Fremont) for the M16 rifle. In interviews he said that it was a "disgrace" that American soldiers are still using the M16/M4 system, since the original design was first used in Vietnam around 50 years ago. He seems much more impressed with the AK-74.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    Jim Sullivan was on the original design team (along with Gene Stoner and Bob Fremont) for the M16 rifle. In interviews he said that it was a "disgrace" that American soldiers are still using the M16/M4 system, since the original design was first used in Vietnam around 50 years ago. He seems much more impressed with the AK-74.
    The modern AR has very little in common with the original M16 besides how it works and parts can be swapped.

    An SR-15, for example, has no parts in common with a Vietnam-era M16, besides maybe trigger pins and takedown pins.
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,562
    Feedback Score
    0
    The Vietnam-era M16 and a current M16A4 (or M4) are pretty similar with regards to the internals.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •