lol every single one of those guns cost a shitload more than an AR.
Like he said, the SCAR and HK416 are the only ones you can even BUY. Have you price a either one lately?
lol every single one of those guns cost a shitload more than an AR.
Like he said, the SCAR and HK416 are the only ones you can even BUY. Have you price a either one lately?
Last edited by Anonymous D; 03-06-2009 at 07:41 PM.
The AR design is over forty-five years old, but it is the over-the-hill Hollywood star of weapons. Bad reference, I know, but every time it starts showing its age it gets another facelift. The HK 416 itself is based on an AR lower and the M4 of today shares few similarities with its AR-15 and M16 brother of the Vietnam era. While there are newer and arguably better weapons out there, the M16/M4 has served admirably for over forty years and through no fewer than five wars and invasions (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, OIF/OEF). Of course, that does not count numerous police actions, black ops and more isolated battles such as Mogadishu. Many of the M4s detractors are those who have limited or no experience with the weapon in combat and while some criticism is based in fact I believe much of it is overblown by armchair commandos. I've never had a malfunction in an M4 or M16A2 or A4 that wasn't feed related (at least that I can recall at the moment, if I do remember any I will be sure to post them). These were mostly due to magazine problems though admittedly a few were due to abuse of the weapon (ie: rapid firing it without lube, after a couple hundred rounds it starts choking).
Eventually the US military will replace the Stoner based weapons. Even when we do I have few doubts that the new rifle will share more than a few traits with the M16/M4. There are few rifles that have the modularity and versatility of an M16/M4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) and many of the weapon's better features (basic magazine design, integrated rails) have been adapted for other weapons.
This is a good point, too. The HK416 is basically a gas-piston AR (and not the only one, either... plenty of companies other than H&K offer gas-piston ARs or uppers). It doesn't make a lot of sense to shit-talk the AR design and then say that the HK416 is a superior design, when the HK416 itself is a member of the AR family. It's like saying "GM cars are crap... a Pontiac would be a better choice!" I assume Bowzer meant to direct his criticism at the DI gas system rather than at ARs in general; it should be borne in mind that the DI gas system is not an inseparable feature of all ARs, and that if you don't like DI gas systems, the versatility of the AR design makes it easy to get an AR rifle that doesn't have a DI gas system.Originally Posted by fm2176
In fact, I think it could be argued that the existence of gas-piston ARs (such as the HK416) is a tribute to the modularity and adaptability of the AR design. If the AR design wasn't so adaptable (and successful), H&K wouldn't have made their own AR variant.
Last edited by Syme; 03-06-2009 at 08:28 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks