Austrian Steyr AUG
British Enfield L85A2
Chinese Type 95
Posted on 04/29/2008 3:37:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RECENTLY reported that several congressmen and senators are looking into the renewal of Colt Defense's sole-source contract for the manufacture of the M4 Carbine, the most widely-used personal weapon in the U.S. Army. Derived from the M16 assault rife, the M4 retains the same firing mechanism and uses the same 5.56 x 45mm cartridge as the M16, but has a much shorter barrel, making it lighter and easier to carry inside a Humvee or armored personnel carrier. On the other hand, the shorter barrel reduces the muzzle velocity, hence the range and lethality of the weapon. As we reported earlier, there have been complaints from the field going back as far as the 1991 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu that the M4 lacks "stopping power"--the ability to bring down a man with something other than a hit to the head or the heart--particularly when the enemy is hopped up on drugs (as is frequently the case in places like Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan). In addition, the gun is somewhat more prone to jamming than similar weapons due to its direct gas injection action, and requires frequent and scrupulous cleaning (which can be a problem in dusty climates like Iraq). Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), usually a strong supporter of the military, is one of those who believes the Army is getting a raw deal: "What we have here is a fat contractor in Colt who has gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Coburn and other critics point to the age of the basic technology of the M4 (the M16 was first introduced in 1965), as well as its high unit cost ($1500 per carbine) relative to other military assault rifles. He thinks the Army can do better. The Army disagrees, pointing to good reviews from the field (do they read the same mail, one wonders?), as well as the fact that any alternative rifle would take time to test, validate, and procure in large numbers. Army officials argue that the costs of switching now would outweigh any marginal benefits. Col. John Radcliffe of the Army Infantry Center responded to Coburn's criticsm, noting, "There is not a weapon that is significantly better than the M4."
That's open to dispute, as gun nuts all over the country will attest. For some time, a number of experts have pointed out that the design of the M16 and all its derivatives, including the M4, is now quite dated. Looking at weapons used in other countries, such as the Austrian Styr AUG, the French FN-MAS, the British Enfield L85A2, and most recently the Chinese Type 95, all use what is called a "bullpup configuration," in which the receiver mechanism and magazine are built into the stock of the weapon, behind the trigger (as opposed to the more conventional layout, in which the receiver and magazine are in front of the trigger). This allows the use of a full-length barrel while keeping the overall length of the weapon short. Thus, the problems of range and lethality inherent in the M4 design are avoided.
The bullpup configuration is not new--the Enfield L85, for instance, is derived from the U.S. Armalite AR-18 assault rifle and has been around for almost two decades. Yet the U.S. military never considered adopting a bullpup assault rifle, instead opting to cut down the barrel of the rifle it already had, resulting in an inferior weapon.
This is not a new situation. The U.S. Army's ordnance corps has always been extremely conservative--some might say hidebound--when it comes to technological innovation. Going back to the Civil War, the Union Army's Chief of Ordnance was steadfastly opposed to the adoption of breach-loading rifles on the grounds that they were too expensive and, with their higher rate of fire, would cause soldiers to waste their fire and risk running out of ammunition. Later in the war, he opposed the introduction of repeating rifles on the same ground. Only direct intervention by President Lincoln allowed the Army to acquire modern weapons such as the Sharps breachloader or the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles. After the war, in a return to type, the Army recalled all its repeating rifles and instead issued the troops with old Springfield muzzle-loading rifled muskets and carbines converted to breachloaders. To see how well this worked out, ask George Armstrong Custer's 7th U.S. Cavalry, which was seriously outgunned by the Sioux and Cheyenne at the Little Bighorn (where about a third of the Indians had Henry and Winchester repeaters).
Throughout the remainder of the 19th century, and into the 20th century, the U.S. Army lagged its European counterparts in military small arms. The M1903 Springfield (which served through the Korean War as a sniper rifle) was an unlicensed copy of the Mauser bolt-action repeating rifle. The Browning .30-cal heavy machine gun was a copy of the Maxim. From World War I through World War II, the United States produced only two outstanding weapons: the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and the M1 Garand (the world's first semi-automatic infantry rifle). On the other hand, Germany produced the world's best general purpose machine gun, the MG.42 (still used by the German army today), of which the U.S. M60 machine gun is a very inferior copy. Germany also developed the first assault rifle, much envied by GIs in 1944-45. This served as the basis for Kalashnikov's brilliant AK-47, while the U.S. had to wait another 18 years to field a practical assault rifle (the M16).
Ironically, given the present situation, the Army fought the M16 tooth and nail, particularly because it used a "sub-caliber" 5.56mm round, as opposed to the full-power .30-06 round of the M1 and its successor, the M14. Attempts to turn the M14 into a fully automatic rifle failed miserably because the high-power cartridge made the gun uncontrollable in full automatic mode. The M16 was, in fact, first purchased by the Air Force for base security forces, and only after much foot dragging by the Army for its troops in Vietnam. As is well known, changes made by the Army to the gun and its ammunition resulted in poor reliability in the muddy conditions of Vietnam, and it was close to a decade before the M16 could be considered fully reliable.
One therefore suspects that the Army's hard line defense of the M4 carbine is due not so much to the excellence of the weapon but to the fear that testing and evaluation of an alternative will put the Army's M16 replacement program in jeopardy. Known as the XM29 "Objective Individual Combat Weapon" (OICW), this is a real Buck Rogers contraption that combines a 5.56mm assault rifle (essentially still an M16) with a time-fuzed 20mm cannon intended to engage light armor and targets behind cover. An integral laser rangefinder and ballistic computer are used to set the fuze on the 20mm rounds so that they will explode in mid-air over enemy troops hiding behind walls or in trenches; it also provides the soldier with aiming cues, so all he has to do is put a "death dot" on the target and pull the trigger.
Now in development for more than a decade, the OICW will be manufactured as a joint venture of Hechler & Koch and Alliant Techsystems. With all its electronic whiz-bangs, the new super rifle is supposed to allow every soldier to engage point targets out to a range of 1,200 meters or more--which sounds great, except that it is almost impossible to see a target on the modern battlefield at 1,200 meters. Snipers can carefully crawl to elevated positions that offer such long lines of sight, but for the average soldier the battlefield is obscured by smoke, foliage, buildings, vehicles, and other obstructions (even a small undulation of 2-3 feet can obscure a man-sized target). In fact, infantry engagement ranges have remained remarkably stable for the last 250 years. During the age of the smoothbore musket, most firefights took place at ranges under 100 meters, and often as close as 50 meters. The introduction of the rifled musket during the Civil War did not change that. The research of historians Paddy Griffith and Brent Nosworthy proves pretty conclusively that the average firefight during this "first modern war" took place at a range of about 120 meters (and often went on for hours, which disproves the myth of the greater lethality of Civil War small arms). Early in World War I, there were firefights at very long ranges, but as both sides took to the trenches and adopted infiltration tactics, the range came back down to 100 meters or less (and military pundits of the time decried the atrophy of long-range marksmanship). In World War II, ranges did not increase that much, because it was found that short-range ambushes were much more effective at stopping attackers than long-range fire (which merely drove the attacker to ground). In the jungles of the Pacific, engagement ranges were usually measured in feet, rather than yards, and it was the man who got off the first shot who lived. The experience of Vietnam was much the same. In today's urban battlefield, firefights take place across streets or between rooms inside buildings. Most engagements still take place at 100 meters or less.
Which makes one wonder why the Army is so interested in the capabilities of the OICW. The answer is technology has a life and momentum of its own. The Army does not pay much attention to history, so when evaluating weapons and setting requirements, it falls back on the crutch of innovation: if you can make a rifle that will hit the bullseye every time at 1200 meters, by all means you must do so. If you can give every soldier a 20mm canon and a digital fire control computer, then you must do that, too. Tactical effectiveness, reliability, and cost effectiveness go out the window because the "Gee Whiz" factor becomes overwhelming.
Problems emerge only when it comes time to pay the piper. How much will this 21st century Wonder Weapon cost? If we believe Army figures, about $9,000 per copy, which makes the M4 carbine look like a steal at $1,500 (of course, you can pick up a Kalashnikov in any Third World bazaar for under $500, but, despite having killed more people than any other infantry weapon in history, the Army establishment will tell you the AK-47 is a piece of junk). Is the Army really ready to give every soldier a $9,000 rifle? How much will that cost? How soldier-proof will something as complex as the OICW be, once it's actually taken into the field? How many times will a soldier actually use any of the advanced features that justify the weapon and drive its astronomical cost? Who knows?
In the long run, it may be that the soldier needs a simple, lightweight weapon that is accurate out to the ranges at which most firefights occur. In which case, there are plenty of alternatives to the M16 family on the market right now. But too many careers are already invested in the existing weapons, and in their high-tech replacements, to be much interested in looking at cost-effective, non-developmental (hence non-career advancing) solutions to current operational and tactical problems.
ping
Two. It would be hard for a Company to make assault rifles and survive on only their sales to the US military. Cost vs Volume. The US is a rich prize for assault rifle makers. How much is hype and how much is truth about the various rifles? Having a spot on Future Weapons does not necessarily mean a great weapons system.
Three. I liked mine so much I bought one after I retired.
I wonder how much Colt Defense pays lobbyists and former Military.
==bflr==
> I don’t know squat about rifles, but every time I read an article like this my blood runs cold.
A lot of my friends died on Hill 881S because of the M-16. They kept jamming every few rounds. Someone, in their infinite wisdom, had decided that cleaning kits were unnecessary.
Sorry, this kind of stuff makes me remember more than I should.
I was issued one of those crappy M16s in 1969. Mine bent a round while trying to chamber it and I wound up field stipping the damn thing while under fire. Thank god for buddies around me who were able to return the fire that I wasn’t. It’s amazing how fast you can take a weapon apart and put it back together if you have to.
Either the author or I am misinformed (I believe it’s the author) concerning the OICW (XM29). That program was canceled several years ago, although some technologies are still being looked at for a future weapon.
Because of the lack of success developing the XM29, the Army, in 2004, began development of the LSAT.
I can’t really say whether the Army is stiffing soldiers with the M4, having not personally fired the M4 or any of its competitors. There probably are better rifles on the market, but I do know what the Army is looking for is a leap-ahead rifle technology and if they were to purchase a marginally better rifle now our brilliant members of Congress would simply eliminate funding for development of a future high-tech rifle. Unfortunately, that is how the funding “game” works with Congress (See Paladin and Crusader for example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Small_Arms_Technologies
I applaud any efforts to put pressure on the government (and military) to provide our troops with the best possible equipment.
Me? When I grow up and enlist to serve my country, I want a 4 0z. ray gun, with unlimited rays, and oh yes ... I want to enlist as a general.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE
This sounds a lot like the AK-47. The requirements have not changed much because the weapon will probably be used in much the same manner - largely automatic fire at short ranges.
Colt probably doesn’t pay any more that H&K. And right now it appears H&K is spending more.
Its called marketing.
I am none of those things, but I know the SA80 - the primary gun used by our UK forces - was, and may still be, inferior to improved models of the AK47. In other words it's not just a US problem.
Numerous factual errors in this article. I especially like the reference to the .30-06 M14 rifle.
Who knows how much politicking goes into the process. If the fight against the Stryker is any indicator, the answer is "a LOT." So maybe the research is right and the M4 is just fine. Personally I never had a problem with it in Iraq. Folks who have fired a lot more in combat than I have seem to have issues with it, though.
“.30-06 M14 rifle.”
Good eye, where can we get one of those? :)
“Attempts to turn the M14 into a fully automatic rifle failed miserably because the high-power cartridge made the gun uncontrollable in full automatic mode.” [using a 30-06 round]
That’s funny, seems to me that the BAR solved this problem
MAY ?? How about DOES need? And why not the Garand ?
I own a couple of these rifles, of the semi auto variety. There are some very valid points made in the article. While the weapons are light weight, they DO lack stopping power. They are great for target shooting, but in a real battle scenario where you could be shooting at people who are taking cover, I can see major problems with such a small round. Something as little as a small tree limb would be enough to stop the 5.56. If you are shooting through a wall or a car door you can forget it.
$9000 for a new wonder weapon???
The only firefight I ever took part in took place in the desert at 300+ meters and the round was totally ineffective at that range. We knew that we scored hits, but all the bad guys were able to depart under their own power.
When I was stationed at Kirtland AFB in the 70s a 250 lb black bear wandered into the housing area and the Security Police decided to shoot it with M-16s and 9mm handguns. They shot it 38 times and it was still mobile. Finally someone shot it with a 12 guage slug and killed it.
Some of the Marines and Special Forces were using M-14s and 45 ACPs in Iraq. I think the 7.62 could be a suitable cartridge for a new military rifle if they incorporated the same types of recoil buffers and magna-porting used on sniper rifles. If that isn't acceptable they need to push for the 6.8 mm.
The military has so much logistics tied up in the M-14/M-4 that they're reluctant to make the change to more suitable weapon. It's going to be a huge initial cost to change over to another weapon, but it should have been done 20 years ago.
This was a decision made a long time ago, simply due to weight. It was decided that a smaller, lighter projectile would allow double the ammunition to be carried with the same weight load. I'm not saying that it's a good decision, just why it was made. But it wasn't just the US military that came to the decision, hence the AK-74.
Mark
If you are the one behind the wall or tree limb, you will soon be disabused of your idea. The big lethality problem with the M4 stems from its parent, the M16A2. To achieve long range performance, the rifling twist rate was increased to stabilize a heavieer bullet. Now the bullet does not destabilize on impact with flesh and the wound is not as traumatic as with the earlier M16 A1. 55 grain 5.56 projectiles fired from a 1:16 or 1:14 twist barrel create devistating wounds.
Everybody familiar with the weapons cited has an opinion on this, regardless of military service or not.
The 5.56mm came about because the people who think carrying more ammo won over those looking for raw stopping power.
The author is correct, firefight ranges have not changed dramatically over the years. It is clear that the 5.56 does not provide the needed stopping power even at those ranges (remember, we are using FMJ bullets).
Hits on enemy troops take place in the open, not through doors, walls, etc.
Given all this an argument could be made that we should issue our troops sub-machine guns in .45 caliber. Penetration through car doors, etc should be left to the LMG operator in the group (if they are not saddled with the M249 which is 5.56mm).
Coversely, it could be argued that a return to the 7.62 NATO would be wise. I can’t argue that.
The mechanism for such automatic weapons exists.....just get away from the gas systems and use those proven over time like the Robinson Arms piston system.
But like so many, these are just my opinions. The truth is that there does not exist a magic “cure-all” weapon system out there. I doubt one can be created as there are too many variable in combat situations.
The lesson was learned and the M4 corrects those problems. And for all of gas impingement's faults, it's generally regarded as more accurate than the piston designs of the day which gives the rifle a better range at “aimed fire”.
Current technology makes piston systems lighter and stronger, and thereby increases their accuracy relative to a gas system or older piston systems like the AK, so it may be time for another look. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that all that's needed is 100 yard accuracy and automatic fire with a heavier bullet, and fewer carried rounds per man. And it would also be a mistake to assume that the problems we have in the field today will be the problems that we have forever.
An occasional snail mail from the field doesn't mean as much as the numbers for the total fighting force on the ground. If there is one thing that armies have always been able to do it's complain about the equipment. But for every complaint about a lack of stopping power from the 5.56 bullet there is a report of the “better effective range” of the M4 compared to the AK. When they shoot at us from 250 yards with AK’s they will miss. But when we shoot from 250yds with M4’s they are hit. That shouldn't be ignored.
Nothing solves every problem, no rifle works best 100% of the time. Like anything else, you need the right tool for the right job, and it's a question of weighing the trade offs. Army ordinance may move too slow...that's a valid criticism. But that doesn't mean that they should change the entire design every time there is a complaint either.
Another potential way to handle the issue is to make the weapons more "mission specific". Issue heavier stopping less accurate AK's for work in town, but lighter more accurate M4's for work in open space. Of course that increases the cost and time needed for training and reduces cost effectiveness through standardization. But it's a way to solve the problem without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and should probably be considered as well.
Keep the M-16/M-4 until another American firearms manufacturer can make something better.
Austrian Steyr AUG
British Enfield L85A2
Chinese Type 95
>>I still have one and won’t have any other rifle.
Amen, brother. I never used one in combat; but I would bet my life on the M-1. I served with guys who were in Korea, up in the Chosin Resorvoir and they swore by the M-1. They had to use axle grease because cosmoline froze. They could dig one up, brush off the dirt and fire all day and all night.
Sad day when I had to give up my M-1 for the M-14.
Semper fi.
this is actually the first Ive heard about an individual 9k rifle with 'video game' tech built in...
I aint gonna get into the whole pi$$in match as to the 'best' rifle for our troops, I dont think there is a single rifle that can do it all, but the avg GI, imho, doesnt need 'puter electronics on his weapon...or 'sniper' ability out to 1200 meter...
they need a weapon that has superior 'effective' range and lethality...pull trigger = goes bang = dead BG...
My main concern is having all our eggs in Colts basket...there are plenty of AR manufacturers that could be standardized, or allowed to run 'their' configuration and dedicate it a particular service branch or unit type...
My question is why wouldnt the goobermint want some diversity in their small arms ???
common sense tells me to follow the $$$, or to look for lazy people in high places that dont wanna risk their cushy assed jobs to equip our warriors with better alternatives...
Calling a battle rifle "inferior" is somewhat questionable and inflammatory using hyperbole. Are they better weapons out there? Yes. However, many have not stood the test of time. Bullpups have their own set of issues and even the Israeli's have struggled to get a new rifle on line. H&K seems to have the best "replacement" in the XM8 which has the advantage of being very similar to the M-16 family with a ballistically superior round. However, as most of the troops are now mounted going back to a full length weapon brings other issues (the XM8 has several barrel lengths).
The Army about three years ago started digging M-14's out of storage and sending them to Iraq due to the 30 cal round penetrating walls better than the 5.56mm. As a side I talk to many Marines and Army personnel returning from Iraq. The Marines are generally happier with the M-4 than the Army guys. I suspect that is because the Marines are generally taught markmanship to a higher level than the Army. As will all thing shot placement is critical. You can have a 50 cal but if you only take the ear off of the deer he is going to run away.
Also, shame on Colt for not championing a new design and developing it over the years. they are going to get hurt when the new weapon is selected and they deserve it.
"The Bushmaster ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) will initially be offered in 5.56 NATO, available for law enforcement and civilian purchase second quarter 2008. This release will be followed by military ACR versions in the 3rd quarter of 2008."
I suggest some reading for KoRn.
The Buick O’ Truth #4 - Rifles and Car Doors
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot4.htm
“Lessons learned:
Car doors offer absolutely NO reliable cover from rifle rounds.”
Mornin Sirs, got .02 on Colt or ‘wonder weapons’ ???
I don’t have time to rehash this debate for the 4,335,254,653,456th time.
The M16 and its variants are fine weapons: on the range and if you have the time to clean them properly.
The biggest problem with these weapons is the direct gas impingement system; which was innovative when Stoner introduced it, but was quickly shown to have issues.
This problem has been solved in modern variants of the weapon, those that use the gas piston recoil system.
Weapons using this system are commonly available on the open market and retail for about $1100.00
You can put more padding and kickbacks into a $9K rifle than in a $1K rifle.
I'm still wondering why the Army is paying $1500 per rifle when Bushmaster sells a semi-auto M4 clone that's probably of much higher quality than Colt, for $1120.00 suggested RETAIL price
I have the M-1 my dad picked up in SK.
As to caliber, changes to incorporate either 6.5 grendel or 6.8 Remington SPC are doable without major design changes.
The M14 is an excellent weapon in semi auto mode, but does poorly in select fire, as does the Belgian FN (L-81). I think that a better choice would have been the HK G3. The Army is apparently planning on replacing the M14 with an updated version of the Armalite AR10.
This article Army Dust Test Critique pretty much tears into the testing presentation and creates a number of questions instead of answers of the results.
Needless to say, the US Army is pushing for more money. Analyzing the data, it appears that the results are loaded to benefit a change, instead of being a straight up test of the systems involved.
While the direct-gas system of the M4 has it's deficiencies, keeping clean, being one of them, it is never going to see the drastic conditions used in this testing. The parameters were based not on performance of the weapon, but on life length study.
The M4's used in the test come into question. The timing of both sets of testing come into question. The deviation from common testing norms add even more questioning of the results.
The M4 questions evolve, at least to me, around two different sets of testing, one early in '07, one coupled with the other weapons in late '07. In this case, the second set of M4's involved had a higher rate of failure than even the first set, which leads me to conclude they are the same M4's used in the early '07 testing.
Also, these weapons were fired to destruction, about 60,000 rounds. Now, if that is the case, and the M4's used in the 2nd set of testing are the same as the ones used in the earlier testing, they are at the end of life to start, will have a far higher failure rate as indicated by the data, and skew the results dramattically.
Any engineer or statistical analyst will tell you this negates the entire test. The fact that one of the tested weapons was allowed to change lubricant in the middle of the testing, negates it from the test or calls for a complete restart. Replacement of parts on one particular weapon should have eliminated it from the test battery, instead of including thte results in the overall data.
In other words, the US Army conducted testing of dubious nature without adhering to common testing practices. Nothing new here, the US Army has a history of bias in doing any kind of weapon testing. It took 5 years to go from the 1903 to the M1, it took almost 10 years to go from the M14 to the M16, and those tests were fraught with interference by military brass to kill the M16.
Are there better systems available? Of course. the HK416 comes to mind. Gas-piston driven and uses the same lower as the current M16/M4 system. Combining this with a better cartridge in the 6.8 SPC would be a smart move for the future. But gas-piston has it's own drawbacks in certain environments. The excess gas needs to be vented off the rifle, this means an extra port that can get clogged with dirt, dust, mud, even water. Having used the Bushmaster system in the field on coyotes, I can say with a good degree of confidence that it does kick up dust at the muzzle, and follow up shots are more difficult. Also, the resulting cloud of dust kicked up is a dead give-away to the bad guys about the shooters position. I would not want one in that situation.
While the combat distances have changed little over the centuries, it has become apparent that any soldier would need a weapon that is useful in CQB and at longer ranges, especially in the constant changing conditions of urban fighting. The M4 is an excellent weapon, but the anti governement media, and especially the internal US Army arms bigots want change for changes sake, not because they want a better weapon in the hands of the grunts.
what happens if colt has a bad batch of steel ???
I had a friend the hunted black bears with dogs and he used a 357 magnum to shoot them once they were treed, so you can kill one if you know what you're doing.
I didn't have the luxury of good shot placement in Desert Storm. I was shooting at moving targets at night with iron sights at 300 yards and they were shooting back. Once the shooting started we were aiming at the enemy muzzle flashes on the opposite ridge.
There were several reasons for choosing the M-16 in the sixties. The military wanted a cartridge that didn't have a lot of recoil and they wanted a light weapon and ammo that the army could carry. A lot of the firefights in Vietnam were "spray and pray" engagements where our troops never actually saw the enemy. Most weren't really long range engagements. Aside from the reliability problems, the M-16 worked pretty well. (Except for that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play.)
I got to Desert Storm just as the ground war was starting. We were already aware of the problems that were occurring with the the M-16's reliability. A lot guys were issued a weapon and they never needed to fire it, so they didn't clean them. The one I was issued was pretty well used and had been packed with a heavy coating of gun oil. The dust over there was like talcum powder and it combined with the oil to make a gum-like substance that jammed the weapons up pretty bad. Most guys discovered this when they had to use the weapon for the first time.
I don’t think the M4/M16 is “inferior.” Its not a battle rifle, and it wasn’t meant to be. Its an assualt rifle and fits between battle rifles and SMGs. The 5.56 hits harder than a 9mm and is useful out to a longer range.
It is, however, time for the military to research and design a new individual weapon from the cartridge up...
(and make sure the d@mn thing doesn’t weigh 18 pounds ‘cause of the bells, lights and whistles they try to hang on it).
The SA-80 had a lot of issues and I have heard they have been sorted out.
Coolest weapom ever AUG Styer.
As long as the Army trains it’s troops to shoot at objects closer than 200 yards, the M4 will be fine as a personal weapon.
The Marine Corps on the other hand teaches EVERY Marine regardless of gender to hit targets at ranges up to 500 yards away with the M16.
Knowing that a pretty little WM Lance Corporal in admin wears an expert badge for 10 ringing from 500 is why Marines don’t worry about their weapons or who carries them.
I personally like the FS2000 as well. And a few countries are using the F2000 full-auto version in the field.
This one is very flexible, ambidextrous changes, barrel length changes and even caliber changes are a snap, even in the field.
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.