To: John Jorsett
You would think that this particular problem would have been discovered in the early stages of testing. However, switching from 6.8 mm to 5.56mm to save a few ouncues is a big mistake.
6 posted on
04/15/2004 12:17:43 PM PDT by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
You would think that this particular problem would have been discovered in the early stages of testing. HECK YES!
Even firing my AK variant in rapid single-shots the darn thing heats up enough to burn the skin off you. The Palmetto bugs don't like their end of it either.
Seriously, if they've even run it through basic trials something like this should have come up already. I'm beginning to fear for the safety of our soldiers already. Last thing they need in a life or death combat situation is a gun that surrenders like a Frenchman while they're still fighting.
9 posted on
04/15/2004 12:23:02 PM PDT by
Caipirabob
(Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
To: Blood of Tyrants
"You would think that this particular problem would have been discovered in the early stages of testing. However, switching from 6.8 mm to 5.56mm to save a few ouncues is a big mistake."
True it only saves a few ounces on the weapon itself. But a soldier also has to carry a load of ammunition. It's the difference between carrying 200 rnds of 6.8 compared to maybe 300 rnds of 5.56 of the same weight. That's where the advantage lies in going to a smaller caliber.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson