Well at least you're not sourcing youtube, so, progress.
The problem is your argument is irrelevant. We're not discussing magazine compatibility.
In fact, I already told you my personal experience of FTFs using aftermarket mags on the 416.
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Well at least you're not sourcing youtube, so, progress.
The problem is your argument is irrelevant. We're not discussing magazine compatibility.
In fact, I already told you my personal experience of FTFs using aftermarket mags on the 416.
I don't understand, so you're knocking me for referencing a video on YouTube but use your personal anecdote as gospel... At least those series of videos were documented.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That’s our Mohsin!!
he totally glazed over the bolt failure which it completely unrelated to the magazine.
he totally glazed over the bolt failure which it completely unrelated to the magazine.
lolz, yea. That's kind of the point.
I provided a source which quoted Colt's reasoning as better durability + reliability. Where's your citation for this entire essay? Your argument that the piston options weren't better "enough" to justify the billions spent on replacement is irrelevant. The fact is that they were better.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
If they were better then why did they not Take the IC? Your argument is irrelevant as it’s emotionally based. It’s subjective. You quoted a Paid advertisement those are florid and meant to SELL. Colt was hoping to win the IC and seal a guarantee of a lifeline. The Army wasn’t looking for an M4A1 based option as they were using M4A1 as the baseline and were intent on a comparison between M4A1 and the IC bids. An IC M4A1 would have simply been folded into the PIP.
history of the IC Colt
IC comp
M27 issues
URGI
Why the M27 was not the best choice.
history of the IC Colt
IC comp
M27 issues
URGI
Why the M27 was not the best choice.
??? I gave you a citation, which Terran said was "biased" and then I gave him another one, to which he responded by rambling on with a random essay with zero citations (as he usually does.) My "personal anecdote" wasn't meant as any proof. That was just my own experience.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Your citation is an article written as an advertisement. Many in the gun industry due that. DR is a defense sheet full of product pushing. Though interesting it’s paid for. Might as well quote the shake weight commercial.
...?
I was actually replying to his direct quote which only mentioned magazine related problems.
Because neither your government nor your Army can get its act together. The whole program ended up as another clusterfuck. First you people say "we want X" then you can't agree on requirements, and your politicians say they can't justify the cost, and the whole thing goes sideways. Remind you of anything else that happened recently, over the last 20 years? lolz
By the way, here's an interesting article which highlights how screwed up the M4's replacement plan has been:
lolz, that's cute Terran, coming from you.
Any other rants in your future?
Oh, great, here's one:
Firstly, the point of that "ad" was that Colt itself made a piston AR and called it the "Enhanced M4".... I mean, you're arguing against Colt while defending Colt....? lolz.
And I'm not defending the M27 or the G36 which you mentioned, because they were flawed products from the get-go and HK paid for it. We're talking about inherent advantages of Pistons over DI i.e. well made pistons, versus a well made DIs, in adverse battle conditions with minimal or zero maintenance, ranked in reliability. Officially, all reliability measures in your army require the M4 to be serviced daily and failing that, its stoppage is not considered it's fault, but the operator's:
“The executive summary said that M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant.”
The obvious common-sense response to this ridiculous statement is by a soldier in the next sentence: "I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”
And what backs up the concerns of this soldier are results like the following, which the Army has tried very hard to excuse away, even though it conducted the test itself lolz:
To top it all off, I'll quote another reliable source:
Here's some quotes from this one:
p.s. and I really do hope that your Army does not listen to this advice and keeps pretending the DI AR is awesome:
Last edited:
SS109 62grain, 5.7mm gives 1.9g/mm2
DBP10 71grain, 6mm gives 1.97g/mm2
Then we have case capacity to area
Where 5.8 had 2.11 and 5.56 1.87, this means that 5.8 have more powder. The pressure is peak pressure so probably the 5.8 uses a slower powder that have higher pressure after the peak. The force accelerating the bullet is the area under the curve times bullet area.
