Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenixent
Not saying it's a bad system like all thing it has flaws but the weapon works for the right operation. I have been working on the AR15/M16 system for 30 years and worked the bugs out to make them work fine. Then someone comes and changes it like the size of the gas port for cyclic rate or chamber dimension to get more accuracy out it. Then those have to be corrected because it done not work correctly with those changes. HK took several years to build the 416 changing everything when Taiwan had the T65 in the 1970's which is a M16 with a piston gas system ala AR180.
|
Agreed, it is flawed. I just find it odd that there seem to be so many SF units in the world which prefer the traditional, direct impingement M16s and M4s over anything else, even piston ARs (in the case of Norway). I've never been in the service myself, but I just have to wonder if it says something that the old ARs seem to be preferred by "the elite".
And yes, it is true that the idea of a short-stroke piston is nothing new. I remember around the time that the 416 was announced, somebody on Military Photos posted scans of an old magazine article from the early-80s for a replacement piston kit called the Rhino. Do you remember that one?