I love how you still keep dodging my point about other countries' SF units all carrying M16s and M4s, even though they have the option to choose anything they want, including the M14s that you worship. Even after I shot down your last excuse...
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870
If we refused to ever adopt a a new rifle to to training and costs well be using m4s when we are being ripped to shreds by lazer cannons.
|
Right, because we all know that the DoD is
that far behind the curve...at a time when most of our country's enemies are still armed with the same old 7.62x39mm AKs that your dad and his dad encountered in combat decades ago.
It's not simply costs and training, it's whether the new platform provides sufficient advantages to justify the cost. Military procurement programs are inherently conservative by nature. Nobody denies that. But IMO, that's actually a healthy mindset. Running out and buying the newest weapons platform on the market, simply because this or that test shows that it jams a little less frequently than the current platform, is not sound policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870
And for the record, video gamers love m4s and there is no SCAR in call of duty.
|
(1.) Every video gamer I've ever met thinks that the newest H&K toys (like the 416) are the best firearms ever, and hates the M16 platform. There's even a group on Facebook urging the DoD to adopt the 416, and (not surprisingly), the members are all high school-age gamers who aren't even old enough to buy a semi AR-15.
(2.) Point taken that there's no SCAR in the game. I've only played the demo. That being said, it was a
metaphor. You do know what a metaphor is, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870
And I still say the m16 took forever to work out the kinks, the sp-1 was a TRULY AWFUL RIFLE THAT DOES NOT DESERVE TO EXIST and now you have okay rifles.
|
Actually, it's debatable whether the early M16s (SP1) were really "awful" - the USAF (which was the only service that used them in large numbers) simply tried to make the rifles as cheap to manufacture as possible, the reason being that they didn't really place much of a priority (or funding) on small arms. Of course, the SP1 wasn't the version that saw the most service in 'Nam. That was the XM16E1, which is the version most people are referring to when they're thinking about the M16's controversial early history in Vietnam.
Also, how long is "forever"? Pretty much all of the M16's best-known faults were corrected by the time of the A1 model, in the late-60s. That's less than 10 years. Unless you think every M16 variant before the M4 and M16A4 were crap?