Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting4something
This was the issue when I was in. As grunts we where pissed off as to the fact that the Corps was using drill as one of the reasons for not going to the M4 carbine. Drill is worthless and has nothing to do with fighting the good fight. The marksmenship view I can understand, but then again we did not train how we would fight at the qualifying range. We didn't wear a helmet or any other bullshit body armour. It was duece gear and a soft cover. Another reason, a general told a hand full of us once was that the carbine was found to be less reliable to the rifle. The Marines have this hard-on with trying to outshine everyone even when it's reasons are not the best of reasons. All the body armour is the real probelm with the full size rifles, it adds extra inches to your shoulder and makes shouldering it a bitch. Outside built up areas I would rather use a fullsize rifle, but nowdays those open ranges are rarer happenings then the close ones.
|
Interesting insights.
I've read a lot of complaints about the M4 lacking range in much of the terrain one encounters in Afghanistan. Quite a fuss was made of this after the engagements during Operation Anaconda. I suppose that a lot of bullpup weapons have similar range limitations.
Still, there must be something good about the M4 because practically all of the SOF over there use it (or the C8). When I watched the doc, Armadillo, I was surprised to see most of the Danish troops using it.
It's probably cost prohibitive but why hasn't any major arms manufacturer successfully come up with an assault weapon with a interchangeable barrel/stock? Each soldier would be issued with two barrel/stock assemblies- one carbine-length for CQB and one full-length for open ground or whatever. It's got to be cheaper than buying a whole new system every 5-10 years or so.