Posted on 12/30/2014 5:44:13 AM PST by C19fan
Without GI and and a piston attached directly to the barrel you have removed the greatest advantage of the AR platform.
6.5 Grendel is superior to the 6.8spc, but either is better than the 5.56.
I used many a different weapon during my career in EOD from 72-96. First one I choose available to me in late 72 was an M2 Carbine as Uncle Sugars Wind Force, EOD or not were not high on the list for an M16. Loved it..... had 2 spare 15 round mags in the stock pouch with one 30 round mag in the mag well...... on my belt was 2 of the 4x30 round pouches, an ass pack, 2 canteens, a demo knife,the obligatory first aid pouch with a combat tampon on my H gear and 4 spare mags for my 1911A1.
That was my outside the wire LBE when we got sheep dipped to Army or Navy while TDY for 60 days in VN in 72,
When stationed in NKP in thailand I was issued a XM177 or as wing nut armorers called em ....GAU 5A or GAU 5AA/SMG. Worked great, the few times I fired it in anger. But being very careful to keep all my tools clean and serviceable may have helped. Carried the XM177 till M4’s were issued.
When Desert Storm kicked off I took a M1A with a 10X Leupold on it vs a M4 due my orginal thought that I was gonna have some 800 yard plus targets so M118 special ball was our load. Never a problem. Good Rig.
EOD is also issued the M107 now. Back in Desert Storm it was the M82A1 variant......we mainly used it for SMUD aka small munitions disruption of uxo munitions etc..... We by no means were special operations but we were attached to many spec ops units so we got some really great gear, weapons etc ......
Saw a lot of DRT’s with 5.56 holes in em an not a one looked like they thought the modern issue AR / M16 carbine was a bad tool for general purpose mk 1 mod O grunts and zoomie’s to use .
In a perfect world everyone can have their primary weapon of choice. Until then ....... the M4 is a fine tool when used as intended, augmented by a TACP with a few radios and on call air and artillery support makes all most happy camper .....
That Trijicon is mounted pretty high, so I don’t think it would. Even if the top of the front sight were within the field of view, you’d hardly notice it. I have a red dot sight and it’s set up to co-witness with the front sight.
When America chose to fight any insurgency, they easily prevailed. Their weapons were fine.
So, while no one is saying that weapons cannot be improved, you can’t tie a soldier’s hands behind his back, give the enemy one or two free shots, tell him he can’t shoot back even then if he can’t see the whites of the guy’s eyes, and expect our soldier to have a fighting chance. You’ve given him a dying chance.
So, Marlowe is right. It’s the Rules of engagement. You could put a howitzer in every troop’s hands, but if he’s not allowed to use it, you’ve just signed his death certificate.
Later reference...
The AR15 platform is very flexible. Every part has to play nicely with every other part, and it’s easy for a combination to go outside satisfactory parameters. Example: an 11”-14” barrel will work well IF you feed it heavy bullets AND have a proper twist; lightweight with low twist and you’re prone to instability (= lousy accuracy). Don’t just slap parts & ammo together and expect it works well. As oft repeated, Vietnam was a great example of what happens when you combine the wrong parts (incorrect powder) and act surprised when it doesn’t work reliably.
Likewise, it’s good for light targets where more rounds per mag = better. Heavier targets will require heavier ammo, which you’ll carry less of ... which is fine, if you reasonably expect fewer targets, more target acquisition time, more cover, and better terminal performance from the ammo.
Fringe stuff like pistons are fine IF you are truly operating at limits of both machine & operator AND circumstances really warrant it. If you’re asking questions like “is the M16/M4 design still crappy?” then you’re not there - stick with Stoner’s design (gas system included) as implemented by modern major manufacturers.
The gas impingement system is an advantage due to accuracy. This is why the AR (given equal calibers) is the most accurate gas operated rifle. That is probably why they rule national matches. ARs with pistons, and there are a lot of them out there, are simply not as accurate GI ARs, nor have they proven to be much more reliable with carrier tilt being common complaint. You connect a reciprocating mass to a barrel and it introduces variation. Mechanical accuracy, to be fair, only generally leads to real world performance and there are a lot of variable to consider. I'm in favor of stacking the deck whenever I can.
The AR180 isn't in production as far as I know, and it was only available in 5.56/.223. It was reputed to be an accurate rifle, but it still has a reciprocating piston attached to the barrel. I can't tell how the forearm is attached to the reciever on an AR180 but I'm not sure it's a free float which could also introduce variables.
The greatest flaw of the GI system (jamming after prolonged fire) can be mitigated by using NP3 coated bolts and carriers, the right powder, and a little maintenance. The next greatest flaw is easily fixed with a caliber swap. The 6.5Grendel looks to be a fantastic round that compares quite well with a .308/7.62.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.