|
|
Posted by MoparNorm on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 at 12:40:04 :
In Reply to: Re: M-4 Controversy (Defense Daily) posted by M Fanoni on Tuesday, January 01, 2008 at 12:17:13 :
Go back to that link and read the experiences of the Silver Star winner with the M-4, he is alive today because after his weapon jammed, he picked up another.
I went through this crap with the M-16E1, 16A1.
Brave men shouldn't die because some clown in a spotless lab, tested a weapon in a pristine environment, and figured it was 'good enough'.
The M4 weapon may be an "improvement" over the 16, it's not as good as the 416 and it smells like the old boys network is still alive and well in DC......
There are excellent weapons out there right now that were developed outside of the normal channels and as such, they do not get the proper attention from those who buy.
Look at what Special Op's use and you'll see what works.
Can the M4 be made to work, probably, my beef is with what is deemed "acceptable", by those sitting on their butts in an office somewhere.
That just means that they are willing to accept a certain amount of loss of life in order to sell a weapon.
We already overpay for these things, they should be 99.9% effective, in the most trying of conditions. If you're going to put the men into a harsh environment , their equipment should be up to the task.
We don't put pilots up with a 50% success or failure rate for their aircraft, we shouldn't value the life of a ground troop any less...
Follow Ups: