Combat rifles in the AP
No, really:
Colt’s grip on military rifle criticized
M4 does poorly in Army’s own test
Update: BTW, an issue I’ve addressed before is that there is no motivation for American gun makers to get it in the military rifle game since there’s no civilian market for such weapons due to our gun laws making their possession illegal.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
Yes, really. Let’s look at why.
They’re saying the M4 by Colt is shit and the other rifles made by non-USA manufactures are better.
Look at what they’re saying:
M4: USA, Colt–it’s shit.
HK416: Germany, Heckler & Koch–more rugged and accurate than the M4.
XM8: Germany, Heckler & Koch–was pursued as a replacement for the M4 (canceled due to money reasons–damn an Army that wants to kill its members).
SCAR: Belgium, FN Herstal–more durable and accurate than the M4.
Remember children: Capitalist America, bad; Socialist Europe, good.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Actually, it’s because there is no motivation for American companies to develop machine guns if there’s no civilian market for them. A topic i’ve addressed before.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
…The problem with that argument is that there’s no large civilian market for full-fledged (i.e. capable of selective fire) military rifles in Europe either. European manufacturers chase the same narrow markets that Colt does—exclusive military contracts with governments world-wide, and non-state actors in the Third World (like illicit drug cartels, paramilitary death squads, etc–though some of that is indirectly facilitated through gov’t fraud/intelligence agency activity, to keep such transactions “off the books”). Moreover, not saying there SHOULDN’T be a large civilian market in Europe–wish there was–but in point of fact, there is not.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Actually… I would argue the situation is different in Europe because there’s no opportunity cost to pursuing machine gun designs, because there’s not much civilian market for semi-auto stuff either. In the US, if you chase the exclusive government contacts, you’re presumably doing it at the expense of your civilian production.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
How interesting. The Army has “combat rifles” that fire three-round bursts or full-fledged rock’n’roll; civilians with one-pull-one-shot semi-autos have “assault rifles.” Sure. The word “assault” does not appear in the “Colt’s grip” article. but “700 to 950 bullets per minute does.” Fascinating. Apparently only civilians have “assault rifles.”
Who knew?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
and M-16 equipped cops have “patrol” rifles.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Finally got to the other two articles. No “assault weapons” there either, only rifles and carbines. No machine guns either, just rifles that have mechanisms that automatically feed and fire bullets. Shazam.