Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gregory_dittman" data-source="post: 2669756" data-attributes="member: 262624">The U.S. has been looking for a new rifle for the M-16 (which almost all of the M4 is) for the past 30 years.&nbsp; In that time, all the U.S. military has found was it doesn&#039;t want a heavier weapon like the standard issue South Korean K11.&nbsp; What the U.S. military is looking for is something that drastically better than the rifles used now.&nbsp; The M-16 and M-4 already outperform better than the majority of troopers that handle them.&nbsp; The majority of U.S. troopers are only competent at about 100-200 yards on the firing range while a U.S. sniper is competent at 500 yards.There have been advertisements by various arms manufacturers that the M-16 and M-4 are junk and should be replaced.&nbsp; The field test shows that the M-16 and M-4 have about a .04% greater chance of jamming than the best&nbsp; (the least likely to jam or break down) rifle out there with both firing the same round.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gregory_dittman, post: 2669756, member: 262624"] The U.S. has been looking for a new rifle for the M-16 (which almost all of the M4 is) for the past 30 years. In that time, all the U.S. military has found was it doesn't want a heavier weapon like the standard issue South Korean K11. What the U.S. military is looking for is something that drastically better than the rifles used now. The M-16 and M-4 already outperform better than the majority of troopers that handle them. The majority of U.S. troopers are only competent at about 100-200 yards on the firing range while a U.S. sniper is competent at 500 yards. There have been advertisements by various arms manufacturers that the M-16 and M-4 are junk and should be replaced. The field test shows that the M-16 and M-4 have about a .04% greater chance of jamming than the best (the least likely to jam or break down) rifle out there with both firing the same round. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…