Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Every M16 I've ever laid hands on has been a piece of complete and utter rubbish. A FAR inferior weapon to either the L1A1 and F88 Steyr AUG's we were using, sometimes alongside.
|
Leg, is this another one of those moments when you declare that the US Navy is cruising around in rust buckets-cum-death traps? Your observation, though not without its merit, is beside the point. Now, if you were to include something useful, such as a personal opinion that the M1 is a better weapon, then your remarks about the M16 would have a context in which they would have serve useful purpose. Since, however, you have repeatedly denounced the idea that there is any need for the manufacture of a new service rifle for Milgov-backed forces for many years to come, and since that is the subject of this thread, your observations are just more of the badmouthing of American equipment we’ve been hearing from you for years. If you insist on offering negative opinion of US gear on the slightest pretext, I recommend that you start a separate thread for that purpose and quit trying to hijack mine for the purpose of venting your spleen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
How many rounds is each M16A2 barrel rated for? Is it really likely that rear area weapons would have seen anywhere near this usage, even on the range?
|
This is a reasonable question for which I have no ready answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
However, that illustrates another point - wartime production, even in a non-nuked setting, means corners are cut to save scarce materials. ANY production late in the T2K war, and in the decades after it, it also going to have to make some tough choices when it comes to raw material quality.
|
This is the kind of contribution I have been hoping for. Your earlier observations about the energy requirements of aluminum manufacturing, among others, are also valuable contributions.
Webstral