Quote:
Originally Posted by sigsour
Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.
Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system
Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.
Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.
|
EXACTLY!
If nothing else, solders are good at adapting to their environment. Swapping a simple internal component would not be earth shaking for M4 operators. 5.56NATO to 6.8 REM, yes!, but not a gas piston. In fact IMO, the swap would save money. Ares Armorment, creators of the shrike, use to and still might sell a gas piston system that is "drop-in". They ran for $600USD. Total the amount of money a solder would have to spend on cleaning and parts to keep the impingement system running for a few years. There is also the amount of time that will be saved and the confidence our solders would gain.
This would also make things easier on armorers. Having more reliable rifles and carbines would result in less routine maintenance. They would be able to focus on more important tasks.
But, just like most "time saving" tech it just raises the bar and we accept more responsibilities. If these solders could use c-mags some would. Piston systems run cooler and foul less often. I don't think they are a great combination, out-bolt systems are better at handling the heat but this would still be an obvious example.
Right now FN makes US M16s (and our support weapon). Colt still make their M4s and they have developed M5. Here are some pics of that system.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=88956
I am still partial to the LWRC self-regulating short stroke system. It does not require the tweaking of gas release for use with silencers or from demands of the environment.