Ambi controls are of no concern to me as in right handed and like hell I want my mag release button riding on my gear. Sometimes I wonder if many of the folks wanting Ambi controls are left handed or just have never carried an AR in combat.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambi controls are of no concern to me as in right handed and like hell I want my mag release button riding on my gear. Sometimes I wonder if many of the folks wanting Ambi controls are left handed or just have never carried an AR in combat.
Originally Posted by Iraqgunz
This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?
I know the SCO will be something like the Trijicon VCOG. It serverly limits placement of the optic in regards to NV. When you take into account eye relief of variable optics that are 1x-6x your only mounting options are a front mounting NV devide and it would sit on the handguard.
The VCOG and any variable are also large optics and mounted in the foremost slot on the upper your still hogging 6 slots of the picatinny rail of the handguard(if the handguards top rail extends to the receiver). If you have any handguard shorter than 12" you would be severly cramped with a PEQ and NV and probably be impossible to have a variable, NV, and PEQ on amything shorter than a 12" rail.
I am all for longer rail, but honestly IMO to call the FRAK destined to fail or not a good solution because it may not allow use of thr SCO, a NV device and a PEQ doesn't seem fair. Because let's be honest how many standard small arms have a super long rail that extends to the muzzle device?
At least they are working on getting a free floated rail.
Last edited by sinlessorrow; 05-27-14 at 13:32.
It would seem to me that an AUG style trigger with an approx. 4-5 lb semi pull, followed by a 8-10 lb full auto pull would be ideal in giving the operator access to both without searching for the selector.
C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
2002-2006
OIF 1 and 3
IraqGunz:
No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"
FF Rail is NOT a requirement in FRAK.
Enhanced Zero retention for devices, desired increase in accuracy - but FF not required.
I'm not arguing against the FRAK at all.
What I am point out is that the Weapons guys in Benning, sit beside the Optics, and the NV folks all at SRD.
None talked to each others - so they got signed off by the General at Benning, and then went out to the different shops to work on.
Frankly I would say that the current M4 is fine.
IF a fleet upgrade is undertaken - it should be looked at in a systemic approach.
However before any of that occurs a realistic look of Doctrine and Requirements has to be made.
What are the KPP's (Key Performance Parameters) of the system.
As a taxpayer I want to know what tangible benefits are we getting for the expenditures.
Right now we have Soldiers who score "expert" without hitting a 300m target.
Nothing that the M4 PIP etc does will fix that -- we need a software update prior to the hardware.
Do I think our (KAC) FRAK submission is much better than the M4 RAS - YES (and cheaper too).
However I do not think that the benefits will be seen by 99% of the Army.
I don't see any benefits of the M4A1 Heavy Barrel - and frankly I think getting them a fraud, waste and abuse IF not done at the same time as FRAK, and frankly I think a lot of things should have happened first.
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 407-451-4544 | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 407-451-4544 | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com
Sorry, maybe I should have said "without having to utilize the selector".
Bookmarks