The AR
Chris Byrne on why he likes the AR:
The point is that the AR is a great system, versatile, reliable, accurate, lightweight and packable.
Read the whole thing.
Chris Byrne on why he likes the AR:
The point is that the AR is a great system, versatile, reliable, accurate, lightweight and packable.
Read the whole thing.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
Find Local
|
March 17th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Well, if this guy says the AR is reliable, he’s an idiot, or never served in a combat arms MOS.
I carried an M-16 all over hell and creation for four years.
As an infantry soldier’s weapon, it’s a P.O.S.
It’s niether rugged enough, reliable enough, nor simple enough to maintain.
In my four years I was issued M-16’s with 13 different serial numbers, and out of those 13, i can honestly say only one was reliable enough to trust my life on. The rest I couldn’t get through two or three magazines without a malfunction. New mags or old. Weapon off the rack or fresh back from an anniston rebuild.
Never mind a few grains of dirt or sand.
Did an amphib assault exercise, repleat with fire and manuver. Half the M-16’s in the company were jammed up tight before we got across the beach.
March 18th, 2005 at 9:26 am
You talk to two different people, you get two different answers. My dad served two tours in vietnam. Loved his AR and thought it was the greatest thing ever. Preferred it to his first gun, the M14.
March 18th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Perhaps, but consider this:
You Never heard anyone say that as an infantry soldier’s weapon:
The M-14 sucked.
The M-1 garand sucked.
The 1903 springfield, the ak47, sks, FAL, G3, FAMAS, nor any other stunk, besides perhaps the awful brit L-85, another solution looking for a problem
An infantryman’s weapon must NEVER suck. First and formost, is must go BANG when you pull the trigger, something the M-16 is famous for failing at.
March 18th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Actually, I’ve heard the M14 sucked but never the garand. And i’ve said the AK47 sucked 🙂
But I’m no infantry man.