TexasAG is on it.
It is near impossible to have proper shooting form, for fighting, with a A2 stock unless you are one lanky fella. It will blade the hell out of your stance with body armor on. The RCO is difficult to shoot with such a long stock as it requires very short eye relief, and the issues are exacerbated in a dynamic situation where your moving. The rifle is fighting the user as its set up.
If rifle length..uh..rifles.. can be made to fire reliably (which I am lead to believe they can be as that is what the Canadian Army is running) w/ collapsible stocks...then that is a pretty clear answer. Some skinny extra barrel hanging off the front of the rifle isn't as big a deal as the part that interfaces with the user at the opposite end. In the case of Afghanistan then it may actually be helpful given engagement distances.
This isn't even an issue of needing to buy new rifles. If they wanted full on M4's...it's only a barrel, gas tube, stock assembly, buffer, and spring away. This isn't hard.
The Marine brass is simply pimping the gear it's service has...which is par the course in the military. I'm sorry but an M4 doesn't make a shooter less lethal. Its ballistic semantics. But an A2 definitely affects proficiency of a shooter. I am all for ringing out every bit of possible performance from a rifle, but there is a point of diminishing returns. There is no free lunch. To make THIS platform, the AR series platform perform better at distance with M855, you have to make it more awkward and ungainly for CQB fighting. The M4 might be a case of the porridge being too cold, M16 too hot, and a 20'' barrel w/ collapsible stock just right.


Reply With Quote

Bookmarks