Thx Iraqgunz for checking my grammar, I still stand by what I said but dont take me out of context either. I would not take a RRA over a colt. I more then clearly stated that during a side by side test the RRA shot more accurately then the colt. As for the HK416 it is heavy and unbalanced, this I dont like. But if I were to be separated from my unit were it meant my survival traveling thru mud, water, I had nothing else then ammo…no oil. I would carry an HK416 anyday over an M4. It will withstand the elements and require less maintenance. You didnt watch the video yet you should. A rifle designed for warfare needs to function without much maintenance and limited cleaning/oil, hence the AKs success. If a part breaks in battle it doesnt matter if you can get one later…what matters is now. No one with a functioning rifle is going to give you parts from theirs!! I hate the parts arguement for in the field of battle a rifle needs to never break. But they do and they have. Water in a gas tube, dust in a BCG, broken springs, extractors, etc. Thats not to say The HK or scar haven’t had their teething issues as well but issues that have not caused the life of as many soldiers as the M16 has.
Taping the muzzle…dont even get me started. This does not happen in the field.
As for Vietnam, it happened whether you blame it on ammo, the “original design” which had no forward assist on the “Mattel gun” or not it happened during use of that rifle…period! No chrome lined anything…Magazines issues…the list goes on but many issues on that list still happen today. My point is it was released without being field tested! They didnt issues the much dependant cleaning kit. But more so when the rifle jammed (not always) it has to be cracked open. Same can be said with the ammo but it doesnt bring those men back who died as a result of that combination but they were issued them and were found next to them in a state of in-operation! There were 2 years of this before they improved on the M16. How do I know this from my father-in-law. He described this in detail and knew of it also considering he wasnt issued a cleaning kit till later. But its not just him saying this:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843858,00.htm
I made it clear that we have had 40 years to know pretty much exactly what will cause an M16/M4 to fail. It has had numerous revisions. We know what parts will fail and when, how to maintain it…etc. What elements it can fight successfully in and what it cant. We do not clearly know this about the current crop of piston rifle out there. Some have fended better then other but none have caused as many causalities do to failure in the line of fire then the M16. Argue all you want…that is a fact but then again it is based on 40+ years of service. Yes it is an excellent weapon but there is are a substantial number of other options for 5.56. The SCAR and the MK416 are being used and are being used in far more critical battle scenarios/operations then the M4…fact! An M4 did not take the life of Osama.
Yes the scar and the 416 had there growing pains I find it funny the first two years of service where the worst of the M16…hmmmm. But now you have to wonder Why are a number of our critical missions being done with other platforms if the M4 is so perfect?? Is the M4 battle tested yes, has it been around for a long time yes, is it successful yes. Let me put it like this, Brett Favre is one of the best QBs to ever play the game has set many records including most consecutive games but he also holds the highest interception numbers of any QB past or present in the NFL. My point is the M16/M4 is far from perfect, there is no perfect solution however there are better solutions based on the situation and condition of battle then others.
Sorry you disagree with much of what I said but much if not all are facts (Sorry truth for brett favre too…he better not text me either)…like it or not. Most of all just having fun here so take no offense. I dont believe that is why we are here.