[quote=MT2008;137]I don't have that much experience with them, but I think some of the flaws their detractors complain about are legitimate. Let's face it - direct gas impingement just sounds like a dumb idea to any layman from the get-go. Hopefully, piston ARs will start to replace the older direct gas impingement guns currently in use, which I think will increase the lifespan of the platform for ages (possibly even to 1911 immortality).
It does say something, though, that almost every SF which is allowed to choose their equipment seems to pick the M16 or M4 over whatever service rifle their country uses.[quote]
Well, it's important to consider that the AR is about the most user-friendly rifle on the market. I never really gave that much thought until I actually joined the military and realised that most troops AREN'T weapons experts. Particularly with an optically sighted version like our C7A1 / C7A2s, it is very easy to train an inexperienced marksman to a relatively high proficiency very quickly.
Even the AK, while extremely easy to use, due to it's lack of accuracy, shitty sights and heavier recoil, is alot harder to use to that same standard. In the hands of an untrained insurgent at 50 yards, it's fairly effective. In the hands of even a moderately well trained soldier at 100-200 yards, the C7 / M16 wins hands down.
Direct gas impingement definately has it's problems, but it also reduces parts and keeps the weight down. I did an exchange with the Brits where I spent two weeks shooting the SA80A2 very extensively - it's a smaller rifle of similar construction (and, in it's A2 form, pretty reliable), but it's also noticeably heavier. This is something to consider about SF - lighter and easier to carry, particularly when you're going to be operating on your own for long periods without resupply. Among other things, SF are raiders and spotters - the last thing they want to do is get into a firefight, because they're going to lose. They just don't carry the heavy weapons and ammo that line infantry does.
|